Skip to main content

Full text of "Saint Thomas and Platonism; a study of the Plato and Platonici texts in the writings of Saint Thomas"

See other formats



A Study of the Plato and Platonlcl Texts 
in the Writings of Saint Thomas 



Reverend R.J. Henle, S.J., A.B, , A.M., S.T.L. 

University of Toronto 
19 5^ 



\ nStt TkOi 3ASTC i»TU!)y CJF' THL tEXtb 


A Stuity of the Plato and Platonicl Texts 
In tho iritlnga of iialnt Thoeias 


4^ — 

Raverand .. J^ ilerda, ~>.J.f A,:i», A.W'«, ■'^.'it.I. 

Cisaartati^xi Praaantod to the Faculty of the Oracluata iic'/iool 
of the Utaiiwraity of Toronto In Partial FtaflUsant of tha 
for the Detiraa of Ijoctor of Philosophy 

I 9 5 U 


»•. :0:i? TMR 


•J.T.^ ».*.A ,.H,i! 4,ij.- tt^: t«vri."( 


J 5 «► X 



wsvtjt...^. ^. . ». 396 

TI. IVmrPVCfim To Tf?-. KATIO-Pr£imii ANAL?J<IS OF 



SEHSKS ...^.^d.A^A*****. 123 

Section 1, Saint Thowas' Fijcposltion of the 

Relevant Theories k?3 

Section 2. Saint Thonaa' Critique of tho 

Pire-PlatOTiic Theories 1:27 


Section 1. The "Sliallltt^e^ Principle 139 

Section 2. The Operational "^odus" Principle hhS 

Section 3. The Hecepti<m Principle Uh? 

Section h» The Transposition of Abstractions 

into H«ality ii53 

Section 5. The Ksse in Tntellectu h$l 

Section 6, Tho Syntheals of Forfflulatl ons . . . . Ii6? 
Section 7. The CowBentary on the '^taphyslca li6b 
Sections. The Via ^Latonica h71 

V . Ti^ •^.ATnfnr tn"-^*?; ,. U80 

n» TJE COV" -: '■• ' : Tt!E T>LATOSTC 

7.; a;. .•;> .,..- ."rVK pRTHCT^'LH;: Ii97 

Aproendixs The "Esaentlalism" of Platonlsa.. 5o8 






5<?C .... 

•m waafBi^'--? ■^-^- -^ ^--^ ^^-r-^- - 

Yia .... 

« - n'do^. 

.,... Ol HT 

v^rTTTrngTIII ,11 


9it *tO not; r* ♦-T'r;; , 30ri 

fSi t 


•Cii ' NT ,VI 


5il»i oLqioaiTff 'wffeo'J" Xano aeir .S no f;^1H^^ 

?iW . 

C5i X^tise^ o^i 

V!54 ... -'- " ' " ■ 

^^ .. 

'I «4J no 9dT .T aajb*»«a 

ii .: ..-,..►... Aot-T.' - £j- ■ ;te£_v edT ,8 no ISovE 

08ti ,,'ikmi orHOTAJ* SJiT .T 

'' 'sff ?' '^'^ M-^ T«,»wa»ivoo re? .it 

T^J ...... rf 

Wt . rv 

5€<: .... ^ ?.«nT^r .nr? 

035 Juoe mwM str ^ ^.ixrrion tjiuofAjF ^ht .xi 

Chapter Pa«« 


Ssctlon 1. Tha r^torde ArguaMit for the 

KxJ8teinc« and Natur© of tho 

Sejmrated Subotaoees 56l 

Section ?. reue Pater , IntelXectua Patemug 

and il« Anlwa JHundr rTT 56? 

Section 3« Providence 569 

Section Ii« The "Good" 571 

Section 5. T!w -Civ'*" 575 

Secti on 6, ?Br 00 e eae j per oe vita , |?er 

ae lateSllifcore 576 

S«etion 7. The BaenKWieB 5&3 

Section f. Xbe Final :>yntbe8ls.. 5&U 


«ar&£ 596 

SlSLl£t)hAJ>m 676 

l\3: ...,,,... HT .i 

ti^ :;::;:,.,. .f 

XT!! ... 
^? ••• 

dt^ ... 
V« •••.^ .• ..' 

di;4 •,,»,•, .- asntw 



PAST no 



Th» aatttrial presentation of tho texts and their organ- 
isation under doctrinal heada in the .Analytic I Jade x provide a 
guide in tho detersiztation of the istportance of different 
classes of texts. There are soae texts which are imique, occur 
only cnce or tviee and hairo no intrinsic relation to otlier 
texts and no doctrinal iaportance in theaselTros. Sach is the 
repetition in ttie consaentary <m Saint Uatthew of a renark Bade 
at the saas point by Saint Jerosje, that Plato advised his fol> 
lowers not to cover their heads and feet. Sob» texts of this 
sort are clearly in fwKticn of a littera to be coranented and 
occur no place else. Such is the elaborate description of Pla- 
to's geographioal and geolo^cal theories in the cxxatmntary oa 
the Meteoars . There sre alao certain citaticms or points of 
doctrine which are alisoet stock references for a given type of 
context, but urtjlch are not developed or inteprated with other 
doctrines. Thus Plato's definition of pleasure occurs fre- 
quently enough, bat it stands alaost alone as an isolated point 



*2o tmT'j lium 

VHMo oi noiiAltrt ataaf*URi oi^ . r,. .. Jt* AdJtw^ 'r> •»» \JLno 
ttiMM iHsavs « lo tm^t^aU ^aie<i oo xrsA^arnoo sAi at nottli^qan 
eict^ 'i«> «ix«!^ MQoS .#«^ ixw r -^Too <»i Jon msw oL 

-a|5 %» a»tfiiJtw99b e#£t(Kf«Xo mil b1 dauPj .»«£• MftXq -- 

m t!»> ' ■ 't 8efnoaf(^ I«929o£oe.^ hoe t»- ' ' 

lo 0(1^ 0071:^ A 10I »a^G»'w'lm MooJg ittoeUa iru dbldv 

-«^ evfoao avracoHq lo aoi*Jbtj.i©tt «»oi3X^ «3riT .MnHJsob 



of doctrloB and is not elaborated or worked Into relation with 
any larger theory. In fact, the roferencea within the fields 
of ethics and politics are all of th^s nature. There Is no 
elaborated theory In these fields daslpnated as Flntonlc and 
treated at lenrth. This Is also eonfimed by a oonparlson of 
the numJ-er of texts listed for the Pars Prlaa and Secunda , re- 
spectively, of the Suaanat Theologiae , These various typos of 
texts could be eliminated fror» our listing without ?isterlally 
affecting the fwneral ln>re8sion of the textual cort>u8 . 

After *a have ellilnatod the relatively unlsrportant 
and the doctrlnally Isolated texts, the remlnlnp extensive 
entries In the Analytic Index can be tprouped in five areas of 
doctrine: (1) The Theory of Ideas and of Separated Sidastances; 
(2) The Theory of KnowledKej (3) The Theory of the Soulj 
(U) Causality? <5) The Theory of tte Mathenstieal Structure 
of Reality (as distinct frc«« the theory of the mathenatica 
■edia ). 9ut here a;rain if ws exaudiw the entries relative to 
the fifth area, it aw>oar» that, although extensive, the treat- 
■mi iMve is alnost entirely Halted to the Aristotelian rois- 
•entarles,'^ The frequent mferences In the text of Aristotle 
to the theory of nustbers anf so forth forced the ccMnent to in- 
clude extensive explAnaticxn. However, the sxibjoct claion a necr- 
llplble part of Saint Thomas' personal attention and nowhere 
assMWB Inportanco in his <mn productions. It Is perhaps not 
without Bliw.ificance that the other areas are those wJlch were 



or T e'-dS ^o IX* «tti aal^iloer ?ww eoJtrt^s ^ 

'*:•=-*,>?.'"" » ^.o. ,-r»p-_.f a;-,|:fl#S (HMKitt IS.I X'»«''* l5«^«1»c/«X« 

J, ...i ti V. '■ M-^ml it ' ' 

«e b«js mt f. v^ -so'i bewail a*x«* 'io ie 

ad? ( i»o3 (4) 

» art* lo ^toiMii a«U mo^ ionti^ih a«) ^tXxvS !• 

-4»do cwliaicKls^/ adt o.^ be* inIX tlw^ine ^eoLstfs &; mui *fi«i 

"5 ■ ■ 

"iff > «tfc* b^ao'xol tj^^twl OP tti* 3^9({nwn Tto T*»««''' •«** •* 

ion - s* Jl . ano ?*jaf?io-8cj nw6 «ti^ ul h-mu za 

«i«fw rfairtr »eor»* *x*t sserte lari^o «»ri-j itAi ftonfto^^lnglt *0od*fw 


ORitral th«««8 of discvssldit and d«bate In the thirtMBtlti 

It is then to those aub;)ects thus iBDoeed by the texts 
ttoeaselves that we shaJUL address our study, ^inee this is the 
first tlae, as far as can be discovered^ that a study of t.'^s 
subject has been directly based on a cotaplote oollecticn of 
texts, the InvestlRaticai of these subjects «111 aia at a funda- 
■ental readinf? and interpretation. 

This roarilnj? and interpretation will be prlearlly based 
upon the te^ts tbontnelves. B^cme^rer, an adequate control ro- 
nuires that these texte be read m>t only in relation to oaeh 
other but also in funet5on of their sources and of the entire 
work of Saint Theeias. For this reason the texts presented hsive 
been related, so far as possible, to discoverable sources. In 
additional hoeever, huxidreds of texta have l>een collected wfaieh, 
while containing no reference to Plato or the Platonic! , are 
yet doctrlnally or historically related to Xhe texts presented 
in Part One . The reading: of the texts will proceed under this 
dual control, thau«;h econoagr of spaee prevents the eo^leto 
presentation of nil the pertinent materials. 

When «« now exa^ne the selected Platonic texta them- 
selves, we find that through thea Saint Thooas' approach and 
attitude vary to a disconcerting degree. Doctrines which (mm 
text ae e i M to repudiate, another appears to accept and approve. 

At tines he places Aristotle and Plato in opposition, at tlaes 

iff •MtrBWB ^libhrwnmmtb 9i ^9lilziaof% as ■ta'i oe ,b*#jLi;»<i naarf 

«tfoJitinr :90 n»^ •iru! •J'3:d# \& vlyentjaEuK ^tvTtrvod «nomhiM 

»Je£QiK» Ki-I •9ra(iv>»i« ;«*&i4a iii^ Ksaa.'joa *itu<ui* lienor. > 

■ iawW «#x«d^ oinoi»Sfi bsaimii^n vAi w»n «r mtSiS 

•cvvKKia tea iqfats o* n "is ^*9tlbu<^tn <o$ 

»ssii iB fiioJ:^!' - oaitli me •XioJaJt*tA aasMiiq ad «wl# ^A 


be reconciles then. Citations which appear as objertlona be- 

eoHB (ilaewhera part of his conflmatcry elaboration. SoBetlmes 

he analyses, sonetimes laersly reports Platonic ooeltions. 

Now, modern 'fhoaistic scholarship has made it clear that 
it is idle to expect to read off readily the "plain" seose of a 
text of Saint Thomas. 

The trmnendous developaent of Thaaistle scholarship has 
provided the student of Saint Tljoroas with a battery of instru- 
nental techniques and vast resources of knovled^e which are in- 
dispensable for the analysis and understanding of Saint Thoisas* 

text. Hot only imiBt the reading be controlled by historical 

background, by parallel texts and by proper analysis of con> 

texts, but a fcneal awareness of Saint Thcmtas* own G»thodology 

Is prsrequislte to a correct approhensl<m of his waning. 

Since the differences in the texts tmUsA above sees to 

be due, at least In part, to the »ethodol<^y of Saint Thenas* 

own apnroach, the first chapter will be devoted to the invtjstl- 

gation of tJie tiethodolof^ical techniques which Saint Thonas ea* 

plogrs in dealing with the poaitiones of the phllosophl . The 

organisation of the rest of this study will be largely deter- 

alned by the results of thJis inv^tigation. 


*B& ^'(t3f»ixt» boe sia^eLtfts mdt i»l vld. ^ 


o& cracrts evrxfs iiry^twi s^»^ 9dt at meoatrtaXifb »itS voaiZ 

^ttes^tAl «tf JUite t!bv^« B^ii^ ^ ^Bu<i aeU^ 'i^ . 


TREATieifr 0? PQSITIQies 

Jf will begin with the study of a text presented in the 
fiftii article of the Qxxaestio do Spirltaalibua Creaturis. Tbo 
question proposed is: "Is there boom created spiritual substance 
which is not united to a body?'^ The body of the article falls 
into three aain divisions: 

1. The primi naturales philosophi who acknowladged only 
iim existence of cwrt oreal nature; 

2. The posterioreg pMlosophi who arrived at a knowledige 
of ineonx^real substaocas; 

3. Vie ourselves, "SUSL*" *'**® Christians, who likewise 
aaintaln the existence of spiritual being but for 
other reasons. 

\3ndier the second division thi>ee ^philosophers are intro- 
duced; first, their argvnsntation Is briefly indicated; then 
csrtain resulting d3ffor<?ncQS in Uieir noaitions ( positiones ) 
are pointed out. In these three cases the arguaantation rests 
on distinctly different rreinises. Anaxagoras' reasoning begins 
with his Initial aixture of all aaterial things; Plato arguss 
froR! the axit^fincy for svbsistsnt abstractions} Aristotle prssup- 
posss as his startinr-colnt the perpetuity of the noveseni of 
the heavens. Ro«r all three of these lines of argunsnt conclude 


'*d* "i« *r.f>*tv rirtn 

•3 ■•'■ maon anwU 3^ —^^--fp 

«X Ml? "T'^bod « o4 isr^ktm Juft tU doidw 

•ano«s«ri tsAio 

«.^«s^ not^A^asstars aiit 6e3#st fi«^^ ebtirfi til .too 

•ai:!Rt^:f iiWT.!ro««»» '(ucsa^S^cuiA ,9»AiBfS3 iimrsVii^ ^^ ,'jo 

•wjjjTx oJiiA-i {«BBtr!^ Xejhr«ii>s0 jCIt to mbk^Xi* JjiJtJtfil alrf 



to tbm cxlstftnee of Ineorporsal nature. To aowi orient, there- 
fore^ the conclusions ugr be said to agroo, but weeisely inso- 
far as ttassjr flow froa the preaises of each philosopber they 
show respoctively definito difforeiMres. Thus, precisely be> 
cause of his first preoifiea (socundua principia ab eo suppo- 
sita ) Anaxagoras has only one incorporeal substance. Plato, 
however, had to number and order his incorporeal substances 
according to the nuaiber and order of genera, species and his 
other abstractions, while Aristotle inferred the raaaber and 
arrangeannt fron tbe pattern of the celestial Buvumits* 

Saint Thoaias refers to the argunents theniselvea as 
Tlaa t 

Sod istae viae [=i.he argusents of Anaxagoras, Plato 
atyi Aristotlaj non sunt nultum nobis acccttodae.... Unde 
oportet nos aliis viis i««the three arguments thereafter 
proposed by oaint Thomas hitaself j procedero ad atanifesta- 
tionea propositi. 

The conclusi((»8 of the arguasats are called posi tS ones ; 

In hoc autes vldontur tr^ praedlctae pooiticaws dif- 
ferre [here follows the stateiaent of the differencos in 
the conclusions of Anaxagoras, Plato and Aristotle j. 

In this text, tboreforo, via (together with various 

associated words) is related to a posltio (to which ponere , of 

course, corresponds) as an argunsnt to a conclusioiu 7hs re- 
lationship is sharply displayed by various pbrasos: 

Plato vero est alia via i^«tbs arguoentj u auj B ad ponendun 
[^concluding toj sti^tantias corporecis.... 

Arlstotelwi vwo ftrocosslt [ avla j ad ponendun substantias 


33Z^ jTi/a tdetgs oJ hl«i e<f xs« aaoJhRrX'Mtea »rW , avail 
X9fit i9d<7t>£o£tnq ffeiae Ito asafcBwwj nd& mml woi? ^:ari* .tc -Ml 

.1 d« ?:•. ' '-■-■--'■ "-■■ -"- -tnfl «iri *•• -"- -"> 

•» BT«.^.^^. ., iinmmjsftib 9i!^ 9i vi9'i«ir aMmTT MiaS 

>eiXrs fiTsa IN. 9di to m»tmiSoao9 odT 

, ••net 

-«•' iBLi;; 1 ie»mf<ine mm b« (ataiKivvr woo 

at.b«»aoq &» wy ss «dv^•i str r?:rii ^w o^ar e^«n 



Referring to the specific conclusions of eaeh. Saint Thowis 
Mplc(jrs the followli^ expressions: 

... Anaxsgoras non habxilt necoase poncre ... nisi unaa* . • 

Plato anten necosae habult nonere... 

Aristoteles autca positlt plures ... consequens fult tit 
poneret tniltas. 

Thus a ^la leads to a poBltlo ; the posltio 1« co— anded and Im- 
posed by the Tia. 

This 8«rs» type of analysis Is conducted In nany texta 
In which tte eaate rolatlonahlp Is set up bvtaaen ratio (or ra- 
ti ones ) and nosltlo . Thus: 

Quidan dicunt quod anlna, at omnino osnls subst.antia 
pr»iter Deum, ost conposlta ex nateria et forma, rulos 
quldeit iKwitionls prlaus auctor Invenltur Avlcebron auctor 
llbrl Fontls Vltae . Huius autera ratio est ... quod oportet 
In quocunoue Invenluntur nroprletates raateriae, imrenir! 
aaterlais. Hnrie cum In anlrsa invwniantur proprlotates piato- 
rlae, ouac sunt reelpero suhlcl, esse In potontia, et alia 
hnlttSRiodl} arbltratur esse neeessarfua quod in anloa sit 
Materia. . 

Sad hacc ratio frlvola net, et posltio ifipoesibllls. 

There Is here afrain a clear distinction between the 
ratio and the posltio . The ratio leads to the posltio and do> 

terclnes it* 

In many cases, opinio does duty for posltio .^ Thus: 

file ponlt oplnlones ponentii» catMan effldenWa non 
solun ut princlpluQ notus, sod etlaa ut prlnclplux bonl 
▼el Ball in r^Mis. Kt circa hoc duo faclt, ftdao narrat 
ewuB c^^iniones. Secundo ostendit in quo In pooendo cau- 
saa defecerunt, Ibi, "Istl quiden." Circa prlaua dao fa- 
clt. Prino ponit opinlonls rationes ^ ex qulbua laovebantur 
ad ppnendna ialiwi cayaa a praedictis .^ 

. . .«i«sRo«r ilsiwf wmMiit M>in wralf 

'*i> hm ' orf^ o;^ 8.^ Mli hem oj Uot 


Tn the caaea eonsldttred abofva tbm rttlationship was be- 
ttmen a definite and specific argunaQt or arguaentation and a 
definite conoluslon. The w>rd via , h ow a rer, nay be used in a 
broader eeose. 

Harun autom duarum oplnlonom diveraitas ex hoc proce- 
dit quod quicara^ ad Inquirendas veritaten de natura reria, 
processenmt ex ratlonibua Intelliiiclbilibus, et hoc fuit 
proprium Platonieonia; quldaa vero ex rebus sensibllibufi , 
et hoc fuit proprluB DfailosophlaA Ari«tot«li8, ut dieit 
SlEspllcius In coiBgento px yar praedi caaenta . Considerave- 
runt Platonici ordlneB quetsdaa (^enerua et speclarum, et 
quod atmpeir superius potest jntelligi eine inferiori, ai- 
eut hoao sins hoc hoaine, et aninial sine ho^ne, et sic 
deineeps. hxistiaaTeront otiwB quod quidquid est abstrac- 
turn in intellectu, sit abstracttia in re} alias videbatur 
els quod intellectus abstraheisi essct falstts aut vwius, 
si nolla res abstracta si rcaponaerot; propter quod etiair. 
credlderunt aatheaatica esse abstracta a seneibilibvs, 
quia sine els intallleuntur. linde posuenrnt hoarinea ab- 
straetun ab his homlnibue, et sic deineeps usque ad ens 
et unoa et bonus, quoci posueirunt suaaan rerua Tirtuten* 
Vlderunt enim quod soraper inferius particularius est suo 
•uperiorl, et quod natura superloris partieipatur in in«» 
ferlorij parti clpane autea se habet at raateriale ad par- 
tlcipatuaj onde posuorunt quod inter abstracta, quanto 
aliquld est oniversalius, tanto est forBalius. 

OulciaR vero, secunduia oandeia Tiaa ingredientes , ex $ 
opposlto p os uerupt quod quanto aliqua forma est universa« 
lior, tanto est aaRis aaterlalis.^ 

Hu*e the procedere and yja are used to mi'or to differ- 
ent tjrpes of arfruxentation, different sem^ral aodes of ar^ming. 
Henoa^ if two philosophies are opposed not only in certain ape- 
clfle argaaents kbA nositions but also in characteristically 
[ proprioa j different approaches to the solution of probleae £ ad 
Inquirenriaa ireritatea de natura rervoaj ttaey asy be distinguished 

eaploylJDK different viae . Relylnc, therefore, on 
this text, «e would be able to speak of a via Platonica and a 
▼la Arlstotellca. 




• bus «£ f » 'iO *R«T8 0# 9ld« ©d bXi/OW 1W ,*K»# till* 


Ths lil'psstlf^ation nay be Axtended by considering the 
use of radix a principimn and ftuKJawentum in sinllar analytical 
contexts. In the THt Subatantiis Separatls Saint Thonas nakee 
a careful analysis of the yl a by which Plato case to establish 
the existenee and nature of separated substances s 

Qode Plato s«f flcl«»ntlori via njrocessit ad opinionsn 
priorm MKtwrallun svaoiandsTs. Cisn apad antlquos Ratnra- 
!•■ poneretur ab honinlbus certas rerms verltatea seirl 
aon posse, tow propter renwt corporalitim contlnouB de- 
tlmatmf tm propter deeeptioTKm seranna quibus corpora 
cognoscuntur, poauit naturas ouaadara a natura fluxibiliuai 
rerim separataa, in quibus esset Veritas flza; et sic eis 
inhaereado anlma nostra eoimoscer^t ^Rsritfltes. Unde se- 
cundum hoc quod Intellectus veHtatew co^nnoscens all qua 
seoorsum aptirebeBdlt taraetfitr n&turan senslbillua reruB, 
sic existlnaTit esse allqua a senslbllibus separata. 

Intellectua autera noster dunltcl Abs tractions utltur 
circa intellipentlaa veritatis, Una quidea secundua quod 
apprehend! t nuiat?roB mithematicos et mai^itudines et fiint^ 
ras raat}K37satlcas sine sateriae senslbilis intellectu; non 
aula iatelligendo binarlun aut tei*nariu!i, nut linean et 
superficien, aut triani^tulua ot quadratua, slisal in nostra 
apprebsnslone '^uld cadlt quod pertineat ad ealidtas et 
frigiduB aut aliquid hu.iustBodi quod sensu perclpi possit. 
Alia autsB abstractione utltur Intelleotue noster intel- 
lipendo aliquld universale absqvie consideratlono alicujus 
partJcularis, pnta ctn Intelli^ssus honinen nihil intel- 
ligentes de Socrate aut Platone aut alio quocuaique} et 
idea a p p a rs t in allis. 

Onde Plato duo genera rerraa a. sensibillbus abstracta 
ponobat , scilicet aatheaatiea et unlversalla, quae spe- 
cies seu ideas noninabat. . . . 

Hujus autea pogltlwils radix invanitazr eff5caei«s 
non habere. Hon enia necesse est ut ea quae intelleetus 
separatln Intellif^t, separatla esse ea in rerun natura; 
unde nee universalis oportet separata ponere subsistentia 
praeter singtilarla, nee etian aatheaatlca rraeter sensi- 
billa, quia universalia Bunt assentlae Ipeorum particula- 
riua et aatheaatlca sunt tersd nationes quaedam senslbi- 
lius eorporaa. Et ideo Arlstoteles manlfestiori et eer- 
tiori via nrccosslt ad Investlpandxaa substantias sepsra- 
tas a nateria, scilicet per ylan actus." 

Thus the sase type of analysis appears here and the Bame relation 

^ua t; 


of Tia to poaitlo . The radix of Um positio i» proclsely th* 

fandamental operativ» prlnelple in the first aovement of th« 

jUk. la an early text " fwari— nimt* and " iffineipiun " are used 

In a aledlar wvft 

Borua auten osmlua errcrua et pluriua iiujusaodl Tinuai 
■vldetur esse princlpiuia ot funfiaaantuB j quo destructo, 
nitail protoabiliiatis reaanet. Fauree eais antiquonui ex 
intent5 onibus Intcllectis judicium rerun natiaraliurs su- 
■ere Tolueniats unde quaeeuaque iafvaniunior convenlre in 
aliqua intent! one intellocta, voluorunt quod cojanwnlca- 
rcnt in una ret et inde ortus est enrar.... Sed boe 
ftaadaaBnttaa est vaJLde debile....^ 

We nay Bear summarise. Saint Tho^s K&kBB xae of an 
analytical method In dealing with philoeophical positiones in 
which t^ posltio [or o pinio j is reduced to the arguiaenta car 
arguaentati<m [via - ratio - rati ones J from which it properly 
proceeds according to his understanding of the mind of its 
author. In doing so he sos»times singles out, within the via , 
a basic stirtinj^-point or operative principle [ radix - prin - 
eipiiaa - fundanentua j which ecassiuids the entire line of 
iiwa^ht, or again he may see the via as involving a more gen<- 
eralixed mode of approach characteristic [ proprlua j of a given 
{MloBophy. The ter^ainology which has emerged in this dis- 
etusion is rather cocpion in such contexts and, therefore, al- 
thoogfa the analysis is scnetiiaes worked without benefit of all 
or even part of this teradnology, we shall refer to this pat- 
tern of analysis [and of terms j as ttte via-positio technique 
for handling positiones . 



if . -■■.■ *» ^'^k'STl' 

'^^ 9M^ t'90f^ «d* ^ TnJStte^t. mSt ^tittsexi oi atw "te 

-.'-•Ltrvr h*i^^..w 4Mlli^''>^ T. ^- '*mxfiKt» •-'♦ •^'-iJOrf* 


Thna •TiqsT'lled by Saint ThowM ht«a*lf with the techni- 
cal verbal pattara Tla i ratlaoea j » pasltlo [ opinio J, «• may 
DOW reflect upon tlia analytic osthod Itaalf thmniby mciraaaad 
aad ita aaaaiag for the intorpretsti on of Saint Thonas. 

The ▼l a-poeltlo analyais nrBciselj relates a phllo- 
•ophlcal ciosition, aa a conclusion, to the prof>0t tthlloaopbi- 
cal premiaos uprni which it rests, vhsther these pirenlaas be 
prloeiples. In the narrow sense, or mtters of fact, real or 
aiqjposed. A posltio is ttaoe seen as deteralned both in its 
truth and in its neaBisg by ita projwr primises and as intei^ral 
and hos90f;eneous with them. Because Axuxawaraa begins with a 
MapJLste corporeal aixture he must poeit a sii^le separated 
sobstance. Plato's principle of subsistent abstractions deter- 
adnes the hierarchy of his separated substance, while Aris- 
totle's ntmber is derived froa his celestial saechanics. 

Thus the via and the poaitio taken tcH^ether constitute 
a Biniaturv tshlloeophical system which is properly derloyed 
aad displayed according to the forwal Bov^^nt of its thought. 
Now, if ptailoaophy involves a moveiaent of ratiorial thought by 
which conclusions are either reached car. If the fact of the 
conclusion is already glv«n, xmd^rstood Uirough oreaiaae, the 
via - «poaltio analysis is a proper and fonnal philosophical anal 
ysis. A conclusjor or positio, divorced from the context of 
its principles, caxmot be phlloe ophl eally detenained; it cannot 
•Tsn be said to be a philosophical conclusion. 


-xa.-:3f>T a**"!*?* %£JM«i« amotTS A5J*« frf t»0al'5«p» e»rf5? 

•to ... ni\ "Hi ""■- ''Vri£i< Si.- ai .iJhie; 

r.^-i r b«r. tiiim* 

»j. .'rn.* -t3N'tt» ^^t••7n•^,- ««a' hns *■^» ->r*t •"?»?• 

■<^... 0,.-:,+ -r,.<^ --^i^-^-.v- '■•^•rlao90 « ..-*.«x 


That God exiats, for 9xam(ilOf may b« aasartttd on hujuui 
faith or because one wants (iod to oocist. It bocooss a phllo- 
•ophleal aassrtion only nhen It Is Integrated into the context 
of philosophical prinoiplas. Jtoreovsr, Kant, for axaaple^ 
Locke, Spincsa, and Saint Thosas aMQr all b« said to assert the 
exLatenee of God, but when the p<Mition is detendned by the 
respeeti-ve principles of toese philosophers, a vast differttnee 
la »e«n to exist and the poeition beconos Tirtually aultiple, 
being differently specified by the principles of each philoso- 

^^ ▼i *«M Wl iJm o type of analysis, therefore, i» tbe 
placing of a poeitio in dependence on its proper philoaophi- 
oal grtMinds* The precise meaning of ttie positio is tiierefaiy 
determined and likewise its spociXicatl<m is detendned ac* 
cerdinG to the specification of its preid,8e8. The statetsent, 
faar exaoplo, that physical science is a valid fom of kotcmX--i^ 
•dga is specifioally different in the epistecolof^ies, respec- 
tiTely, of Saint Thoisas and of Kant. 

This point is of capital i3fBportance for the purpose 
of this stoc^ and an essential part of its argunBnt. The dis- 
eoirery of a consistent use of the TJa-poeitlo technique in 
Saint ThawM shows that he was deari^ awure of the f omal re- 
lationship batmen philosophical principles and philosophical 
conclusions and, therefore, also of the specifying relation- 
ship existing between than* 


i«-<«>r/C rmj^ f 

^#mea« «l yffm ^»£iimscs» mt «eitbCx> JsoS isOt 

«*£qpKU lot «4<uiil «^& .ealqiaei:^ Jfc-- , 

««a« ^«d ^MO to naaoimixtt 
^r ,*^jr>SiV ^sfio3««* R0J*A««»o srfi bB« *alX9 oi* am9 mi 

>3£ £>. i<u^.Tte9#«& •! R(Kr^«9tkl2MQ« 9*1 emtrtML tec b«dteT~*^~' 
.» t «cfa^ le 9-UMEC ^i^aaXs «flr« ^ ^sd^ tmoinl* ctsRdiT tetlMA 


Moreover, this node of analsrsfifl, besides being properly 
phlloeophleal tw perhaos because it in propwlj philosophical, 
reduces a phllo8(^Mcal conclusion to what T shall call a "pnre" 
position.^" Par it is not the accident of historical connec- 
tion or the pre89ure of external dretxastance that Is used to 
iUinrlne the coTteltislon. A sin(;le consistent set of p»rinci> 
pies is disenpaf^ed, and It Is in the llpht of these concla- 
sions alone that the conclusitwi is seen. Thus '■hen Saint 
ThoBBs, having described the node of cnawntatlon proper to 
the Platonlsts, points out that Avlcebron entered on the namB 
waj [ eandea yjam l and arrived at a doctrine which was hannoni- 
•ns with I^atoniss and indeed consequent to it j sequela ejus J , 
he is concerned with the continuity of philosonhical reason 
and not with any historical ceamection between Avicebrwi and 
tho Platonlsts, 

Tn all these cases the effort is to shov bow the con- 
clusions are detemlned solely and pnirely by the glTSB pr««- 

"^^ ratio-positio method is, therefore, (1) a properly 
philosophical node of analysis, which (?.) specifies conclusicms 
T^ilosophically, and (3) reduces tli«a to a "pure" position. 

Howerer, the investigation of this technique (or of 
parallel techniques) has by no aieans been conpleted. The via- 
positio dialysis is not Introduced by Saint Thomas siaq^ly for 
historical reasons or for a asm understanding of a given 

- gftwi «tMirt« MBtl «ii^ ni •i 4t bm t*ft3«»ittt«tfc nr mim 

imt£.Z aeilm asnlT .flvesi af «t«ff Co riots »K* iMi enoX.- «ao*« 

- «t «afsr«; aot#i 9 lo »lkos »d# b*<l^ii')Offd %tttv if? 

■ •••sf 

t» «ir) 6jtiplmf9i»i di:^ !« or 9Yni 96$ (tenr^MaR 

10^ -^^lairc auraatiT <rai^ ^ b9»«iNn^Rf $im tit ^i^xLtuu vr 


position. Ti regularly oeours In erltieal paBBtemt and Mfves 

m m baalB for a critiqo*. 

Th» flnt thing te b« noted is that Saint TboMB «»> 

■only naititalns a clear diatlnRtJon iMtwcMHi a critique vhloh 

attacks the via or ratloma and one i«hich attaeke the poeltlo 

itself. Thle dlstlnetian vary frcxiuantly appears in his ela8«> 

slfieation of the Aristotelian arguaants In ttas ooaaentariss. 

Kst 9rgc Mc cc»itra duo disnutaandia: scilicet eontra 
rationag pooitionls, et contra ipsaja poaltionea . Utnis- 
qiM ndm sat falsiak Han ait ratio peaitioin is latorai 
falsa erat, et ocanm pqeitlo .^ 

... Circa prlnuE tluo facit. PriEso enla dlaputat contra 
ipsan positlcKNHn Flatonis* Sacoado contra ratlonea ipsi- 
us, ibi, "Affipliua autos secunduss quoe etc. "3.^ 

It is (^vioas that the eoost sweeping attack will In- 
eluda arguaonts against both the rationas and the poeltlo . Tt 
was this sort of dsvastating critlqiie tiiat Saint Thweaa found 
Aristotle carecting against the Platonio Ideas In the first 
book of the Motairfiygics . Saint Thoctas blasslf frequently 
usas the sane tvofold attack, v^e liave aoen hisi in his cri- 
tiquo of Avicebron's theory of imiversal matter remarkli^: "Sed 
haec ratio frtvola est, et posit! o iwpossibilis." Parti ciilarly 
with regaond to the Platonic assei*tion of the sidtoistlng species 
of iHitarlal things Saint Thonas not cnly dsstroys the rational 
foundation of the argaBent btit ap^srovee and repeats aMoy of the 
arguasnts which Aristotle directs against the positip > 

la sane texts , iiowevsr, it is the positio which is 
singled out for iixsediate criticiss* In the discussion of 

til ifaj^ «*> fett» B» 

«e -v niK". tii". ^ ».••.' lik'v; ; » 

tab lo #«}• «1^ •!(« 

« ' 1o itoli-io««£ dfnofjXS udi o^ t' ftm 

leat; ■■ tK^*.-.": a"<i^r^.■it : 



Avicebron's doctrliw on the anatiplieity of fonw, b* •hows 
that AvicataroD la faUoniBg tba amm via i eanden vtani as PiM- 
to but in an invortcd dlrectlan. Of coursa, the reader kooaa 
that this identification of ATlcebron witli Plato la, in ef- 
fect, a Injection, yat, in the context, the poeltlve argtaanta 
advanead Aia directly at the reeulting poaitio . "oed haaa £0- 
altio sacundua vera r>hiloso;^iiae principia quae considaravii 
Ariatoteles aat ianxissibilis." The arBUjaente which hare fol- 
low — "Priiao . . . Secundo . . . Tertio" ~ ara nH—atari not 

atralnat tlw via but aga-lnat the theoiTr of plurality of foroa. 

that l8, the rositio of Avlcebron. 

The prlaary erltlelBR wgr, hoawver, in aoae cases be 

United to the via. Thus it la the fundaaHital principle that 

caaRsanda the unf oldln« of the Platonic via wldch la rejected 

in the Da Subatantiia Sep«ratAa « "Hu^oa atttas paeltionis 

radix Invenltur efficaciaai non habMre.** It is clear, in the 

light of the analysis of thia sethod, that the refutatitm of a 

via is, j^iloaopbically speaking, at tha aana tioa a refata- 

tien of the poaitie Inaofar as it fonaally dapttods vqson that 

via. This Saint Tivsma had roaarked in his earliest vialyti- 

eal exaaination of the Platonic aipw— u tt 

Borm ante* onniua errturtn et oluirloB hajawaodl mua 
vldator »»ii» prine5pluB et fundaaontna, quo deatructo 
nihil probabilit atla ramane t*^" 

In erltiel sins' a posltio , therefore. Saint Thi 

laakee use of the proBadurest 

ml ik mail . Ahr aiM 9^ bsltelT 
ft It. ^il*Mi »M* ** ''- M'jll 

m- t* «ff£nao wM'Ofi j^tneH 

tmeinbemB'Wi sflimXIol (tdtt to •■« cwlMt 


1. Ha ngr roduee tho pcwitlo bgr au2y»i« to the viz or 
rattoaoa traa which it results and nay ein^U* out ths 
^>aBic 8tarting>poiiit or prii3eipla [ radix j of ttio orgu-i 
■entatioiu A critiqus say than bo conduotod by at- 
tacking (a) til* via, ratlopog or radix, (b) tte posi - 
tie Itaolf , or (c) both tho vi a and Um poaitdo . 

2, He may doarribo a poaiti o and attack it dlroctly, with- 
out the roductlvo analTsJs*^? 

Tha BMttar* hcnmvtr, la not quite 8o eia^le. Thare are 

oasoa of posltioooa wbicU, in cartain critical coot^ixts, are 

analyaed by tha via-poaitio tecutdquo and rejected but ara, in 

otbar eoiitaxtay apparently approvad and ineorporatod into Saint 

tluxaaa ' oisn thought. K one accoptad thia as a aolf -contra- 
dietary procedure one cwild, lor exanvls, arrange a ainriaa of 
discordaatiap with raferenee to various positions, amoi« thni 
being oertain ij^>ortant Platonic o»os« Qme could, too, see 
one aide of tidm series as beiag tte true or »at4ire view of 
Saint Thoaas and reject the other. This, in fact, se4»s to be 
iriiat Fabro has done in coaamtlag oertain texts. An exaenlna- 
tion of this procednre will further develop and clarify the 
■sthodological points in which we mv here interested. Fabro, 
for sxaaple, advanees the following text frora the busBaa Tbeo - 
loglae .^^ 

Plato enia nosuit oeniua rvrua species separates; et 
quod ab eis indi vidua denoednantur, quasi species sepa- 
ratas perticipando, ut puta quod Socrates dicitur boon 
UBoaaAm tdaaa iKwinis separatsB. Et sieut ponsbat idsayat 
boMlnis et equi separatasi, qtusa vocabat "per se hozdneiB'' 
et "par nm equta," ita p(»iebat ideaa eBii« et idsasi unius 
separatan, qnas dlcrbat "per so ens" et **p«* so urua}** et 
ejus participatione ununquodque dioitxar ens vel unun. 
Hoc autea quod est per se ens et per se unua, ponebat 
ease siaanai boaaa. Et quia bonun convertltur cub ente. 

* .- . 

'?' ♦^no Uioiittm aiA^J•i^ at «^tete »?:^ •«» 

i.y> ■fcjit>?tJJi ■y4«i.^»^<^pl.»■ alf-*r«y sai«<f 
.«wi< «g||^ 8ti£M( u» flmtm^e mtdi %» •fete to* 

•a:. xk m9iv9i tiiB^tfarj ^'^Jr.smatttt ai tttoh ant o^ur.^ fmim 

9^* -^»<t»X» btm qtJtmnb ttMiihuA Xf±w «sute9o«i alit^ le laoi^ 
tov ^!»JKi ciMi •TEA wr ii*ldir si »#irioer lo^^^^X^ 


^•^3 lJK/:_> ■-■.■.■- v-it»VII»t» S.*iy. 


sicut et vBoamt ip*t» p«r b9 bomm dic«bat esee Doua^ • tfao 
oania dicuntxir bona xxr arodua parti clpatlonls, Et quasrrlg 
hate opinio IrratiMaMlla iridoator qaaffitoB ad hoc^ quod 
pxmobat ep«oie8 r«z>UB naturallua BVimrtitas p^r se aubsiso 
tiantes, ut Arlatotelaa anltlplieltar teprobat, taara hoe 
abaolute *««»:«» est, quod allquid eat prlaK i a, quod per suaa 
>ntla» aat ane at bonura, quod dieiaus r<ea!T!, ut ex at^Mi« 

rioribua patat. Huic etlan aontentiaa concordat Arlatota- 

TMa t«xt 3 a ai^ppoaad to ahow an increaaed banavolenee torarda 

Plato, and a-ren a certain diadain for Arlatotle, 

The following threa pointa ahowld ba noticed about the 

text Itaelf , Flrat, only the poeltlo of Plato ia givane "poau- 

it ••• ponebat ... ponebat ... ponebat ... dleebat ... pimebat.*' 

niara Is no tawaantation of the via by wMoh Plato arrived at 

thla poaitlon, though at tha tiaia this article vaa written 

Saint TbomoB was In poaaaaaitm of a aaglatral and unequivocally 


daatruotlva analysia of thla via . SeeonUy, vith rofard to 

tte part of tha poeitio afeich ia her« ^proved, tha avldenee is 

aald to lie In Saint l^owia* oan previous arflrtas^Rtation: 

... tasten hoe abaolute varus est ... ut ex attperloribua 
patet ... in qtianttea parti cipat ipsua per bhxItaq culusd«« 
aaalnllatlonls licit ranota et defieientar, at ex super! « 
eribus oatet. 

Thirdly, in tha iaoedlataly nubaequent paragraph, the rational 

axplanatlcm Is explicitly derived froJi thm Thtwletlc Inawrtlon 

of participation Into the pattern of the causea which ia coti- 

aiatantly praoanted, ia thla regard, as tha Thoiaistic altama- 

tiva to tha vla. Platonica ." ~ This point will be developed at 

greater langth later. 


litfjoiir. ftfnlor 'f^vl* y^iiKiLHty'i e/IT 
^A wfj to £tf»£iMae««iKr rxr sf otMlT 


-.11 .'.-•■ai*ji:i -• ./ -J ~ ' 'J ;: 3 ' .' XMf ^d 


VihaX, then, is happanlopr in the text itself? The Pla> 
tonic poeitlo that there is a priwiwi era et bonap per ee eentiam 
in irtiich all things participate i« inte^ated with a vie thoh - 
Lca and toplained within the context of that via. The 
Ltio is, therefore^ no longer fornally t^toBlcf it can cmly 
be said to be aaterially a Platonic position. 

This conclusion can be indirectly verified. It has 

been pointed out that tho characteristic seaninfi of a poeitlo 

is governed by its forssal prenises. Row tlie poeitio under dis> 

eussion asserts a priaaa ens per esssntiag « How ia the precise 

■eaaiag of this foranla to be detersdaed? If it is integrated 

with the Platonic way of arRuingy the nature of the priewin ens 

■nst be deteralned according to the wodia Intelliyqadl j for it 

is precisely a iraaspoeition of the conoon or "uid.vez*»al" eon- 

eept of epB into the real order, ^t this is precisely t^be 

deternination \rfiich Saint Thoiaas has rejected. In ^-l., I» 3» 

kp arg , 1« the objection is raised: 

81 enia hoc sit, tunc ad esse divimai tdhil additur. i>od 
esse cui nulla fit additio est esse cosnrune quod de ocsni- 
bos praedieaturt sequitur ergo quod Deua sit ena coramine 
praedicabile de wnnibus . 

Saint Thoaas answers this precisely by distinguishing the esse 

coamne and the esse divinua , A longer discussion of the 

saae point with clear reference to the via, Platonlca is to be 

found in the Centra Oentiloa . 

If, then, the caeanlng of the poeitio cannot here be 

deteind.ned by the Platonic presdses, it is clear that It is 

'•>A- bfi/T Waters hc« : y|>/^6A» 

b6J£,i3siJrai: *i Ji il ?&8nx«^a?9b vd to* AXamitl 8M# lo pr' 

0t "y JJMfiii ^ a# sfli«rio»!M bK»i^n%Hh mS Hum 

..^(09 ^i '7* TOO "irf* lo swf/J'^enwnwt • icjt?? ' «t 

«C «I ««1«:^ *^ •<»«'o«^2 «a£ OfisoifY Jffx«£ liaMv {K>l>^AnJ:«i*iob 

aid- ai bouol 


totmaOOij detached, in our text, froa Platonlsn and Integrated 
JjBto a different an<J, Indeed, oppoeing T^iiloaophlcal doctrine. 

lew thle text has b«ten analyzed at sane length, not 
8iaf>l7 because, vhen properljr read, it offers no support to 
Pabro*8 theeie (iriilch is not the prinaiy interest here) but 
priaarilj because It affords an excellent Illustration of the 
technlqt» ttar handling detached positiones . For, if the Tla 
and rationee T^iloaopfaically detnndne the neanins; of the po -> 
sitio , a poeitio le*£» eat prUwm tna ger essentlaa j with- 
drawn trom its original nhiloeophical context becoaee inteter- 
■inate* This 5 ndeteminate poeitio 9tef thus be integrated, 
without adulteratlMi of principle. Into Saint Thoaas* own doc- 
trine and this he does by numerous devicea varying all ih» way 
frow enooth Insertion into a subtly shiftily context to a di- 
rect and explicit detereinatioo or rather "re«deterainatlon* 
of meaning. 

Those who are faailiar with rurovious stiKliee in the 
sethodolo(7 of Saint Thoaaa will reeofmise that we are here 
deeerlbing a technique that is parallel to the aedieral inter- 
l^retation or exoosition of auetorltatea . The historical ex- 
pianatien and develoPTwnt of this auctoritag -teehnlque have 
been well dlseuseed by others. Hsdieiral diecussicm was car- 
ried on under the double influence of a profound reference for 
tradition and a profound ra^wet for reason. The nedieYal 
^ritiloe o}4)er or tlwologian was, therefore, forced to substantiate 

'-'.faJS tern ,*)(Mi* r- -» ,0at^sjteh '-^^ -^ 
• ;t :i J'ssTS^rti >f^s>«irB3 ««» *03 «uJ iiaJUi*^ »i«ja1tf •'olrti^ 

•t 1» 

9i» fti p "' '- -^^r«o -'^'— ^'- -'- --r-T 


Mb t«aeb1n;f V niacins It unclar tbm fMiroaam of the c^raat 

Mt» Sanetl ot pMloeopbl — of thn wwt iiMle, at the 
tin»( w q jp or t lng it on a solid rational structur«» His 
of dsbsts were twofold: auctoritiites and ratlones. 

3aint ThosMS ««nLa!fed both woamsns and for each he possessed a 
style and a technique that enabled hlu to ooee tiironf^h fnedie* 
val rontroit e rs y vith eonsanate skill and prudenoe. Moreover, 
tbe doctrinal all^fment of Plato and Saint ftttrnetine gave hlis, 
in vies of thi?8e techniquas, an unes^wcted advantage* E|jr using 
evory variation of the atictorit aa«technlnt«i he «a8 sSbla to 
Mdntain hie solidarity with Saint AusfMBtiiw unA so en^cQf the 
protection of the saoe great naas that his adversaries invoked. 
At the saa» tiae, try vatog the via-positio technique in hand- 
ling Platentsa he was able to attack directly the f imdansntal 
principles vhich nere Plato's source of error and were still 
at irork vithin Aue^ustlnianiSH. Thus it was that he co^jld bor- 
roe tbe auctorltates of his ihiftnstlnian adrersaries vhlle, 
sithoot offending the Christian veneration for Saint Augustine, 
he could, through Flato, destrosr their raticgaes. 

In addition^ harnvnT, Urn applioation of tbe anctca^tas - 
teotaniqus to the free poeitio enabled his, on due occasion, to 
invoke the grmit nase of Plato in witness of his own positions. 
BlB varying handling of the sidwlstenee of Ideas furnish^ per- 
tinent cxaaplee. The v ia -poeitlo anal^is has deprived the 
thesis of its rational ground and, t^ierofere, destroijed It as a 

Mfet ^vAmn «Bfr- ■ '-' — :f«»ai# nW 

ju' » mtv nt 

^J» x^imbUi^ nisi it^ 
,i .'Vat* mM to ." vxr. 

, iV.T Of- 

^'^o-: ^^....^.^. imuOmimittm v^-^ "--^ -nlftasMf ythctwr miff 


fonnl coocluvioB of tha via Platonlca . Ha«wer» ite py^i^o 
lta«lf la subjsciod to varioxis interpretive traatoents. It 
can be divided into an asaertion of tho subsistence of Ideas 
of sensibls beings and an assertion of ths subsistenes of Idea* 
•f Being, taity^ the Good. The first thesis is generally cate- 
goricaXly rejected, since, e^»n as a poeitlo, it can hardlj re- 
ceive a benevolent Interpretation. 

... c<mtra ratlonen rerust sensibiliuB est quocl eoruR fonne 
siibsistent absq\» materlis . . . .^^ 

... sed quia vldetur esse alienua a fide quod fonsae renaa 
extra r^ per se subsistant absque oat^ria, slcut Platcnici 
pcsuerunt. ...^7 

In tJMse texts the thesis as regards forss of sensible beings 
is rejected in Itself, as a posltio. since it is against reason 

and against the Faith. 


let even this thesis is scaactiries rescued froa eo^ilete 


In quo etlan allqualiter salvatur Flatonis opinio po- 
nentis ideas, socundus quas fcrmaventur anaia qfuae in re- 
b'js Mitorlalibus existimt.^o 

Tl» eiq^lanation which "saves*' Sato's opinion is Saint 
Thonas* tteory of tho divine knoidedge. This is clearly not 
the opinion of FXato as it derives froa his osn argusientA and 
even when tho oplni<ni is taken materially hardly coincides. 
Hence the limitation of the "aliquallter.*' 

The sftcond part of the poeitlo , however, is a different 
■latter and allows, under the positl o-auctorl taa treatoMit, a 
such different use. The stateaent that an absolute Being, or 


X^SIU- f 

„»- 1-. 

is. e 

Or ^.. . .oJ:iiy>q » as «i£o»#l act bs^aat*^ at 

•it^lii^ «(iJ^ iuAiays boa 

mo slti onl imvt'^ itl em o&e^S^ \o ooiatiid •tit 

« wf-* ff sin 


Ooorf, «xl«tB Is om that Stint Thonas can aak* vfaolly his cwn. 
Thus, refvrrlnit to Plato's roeltlcHi, 1m •iqrat 

.•• tasan hoe nbedute ■mrtm eat quod all quid eat Trlaua 
quorl par anaa esaontlan aat a«a at boona quod diclEoia 
UmaSf ut «x auperiorlboa |>atet.^9 

In thia text, aa «a hava sees, tho firaa poaltio is inoorporated 

into his omt i^dlosophgr. 

Wtm, the difflctaty of roading Saint 'nioaas aright is 

further conplicated by t*e fact that both the TlaHPoaitio and 

the poel ti o~aactori taa technique often appear in the sase c<m- 

text. 7n 8\ich caaea the structure and siovesent of the text is 

Terj subtle aixi needs careful study. 

The article In the te Vcritate ,' "ntrlua asnla slnt 

bona bonltate prlEa," includes a straight ph51oBophical analy- 
sis of the Platonic deterail nation of the qttestlon, starting 
trcm the foiiliar Platonic principle: "ea quae Dossvnt separari 
seenndiua intelleettuB ... etlaei seemxhan esse separata" and ao7o 
Ing to U» Platonic poeitl o « Af^ainst this integral opinion he 
then alleges in a e<a^prehenslTe and axamuj aaaner the Ari8to-> 
telian argUBMita of the Mstayiiysles and the Ethics * It is 
particularly noteworthy that he appeals to a special arguaent 
specifically directed against the Platonic Idea of the Good. 

... txia etiaai si^jpoeitis Ideis; qua spedaliter lata ratio 
aoB habet loco«i in bono| quia bonwe non univoce dicitur de 
bonis, et in taliboa nan assignator oaa idea seevmdua Fla- 
t«iMi, oer quaai Tlaa prooadlt eootra eua PhSlaeoptas In T 

Saint Thoaaa th<?n urges eith S7«eial force j sp^yialiter 

... apparet falsitaa ...j the arguaent baaed vpoa the inter- 

•f #T «t ^ 5* beiz ^ ^*** ^ e.t^««ly^« ii«JtX9# 



rvlaiion of the cau8«a: 

5peciallt«r Umm quantum ad propoeitaa pcrtinat, appa- 
r«t falBltae ]?raed4ctae poeitionis ox hoc quod orana agem 
iBVWBltur aibl alaUa atar«{ uuie si prima bonitaa ait «f- 
foctiTa omnlDM bonoruB, oportet quod oiailitudlna" aiiaa 
lEjpriaat in rebus effectie; et sic umaaquomw (licetur bo- 
nua sicttt foma inhaorent© per slrsllitudlnaa aawri. boni 
slbi indltaa, at ulterlua per bonltateta prinaa, sic«t par 
exaraplar et effactlwa onnia bonitatls cr^atae. 

At this point it woulii new that the Platonic position had b«en 
rather thoroughly refuted both in its rati ones and in itsalf , 
and, indeed, in a ywj special way with reference to tha Idea 
of the Good. let at ttiis point ^aint Thcems adds the laconic 
riirl-T "Quantia* ad hoc otjlnio Platonis ouBtiiwri poteet." The 
switch froo the ▼ia^ositlo to the ^gaitio-auctoritae techniqiiS 
18 indicated in the brief phraae "Quantum ad hoc." For what 
doe* thla Man? It means ti»t the opinio £ pocitlo j of Plato 
can be aaintalnBd if it is referred to and understood throoirh 
the typically Thoaletic argument Just presented as specially de- 
stroying the Platonic posiUon. The Platonic Good nnst be under- 
stood as the Thoeistic Good, the exenplar and efficient cause of 

all goocteese. 

It should be noted that this is exactly the waning 
gl^Wi to the Platonic poaitio in iivw^a. TtieoltHdae , I, 6, Ij, c.: 

Sic ergo uauaquodque dicitur bonun b«iitate divina slcut 
priBO principio eaBsaplari , eff ectlTO et finaU totius 

boni tat is . 

Tha approval of the poeitio la conditioned on this interpreta- 
tion. " QuantuB ad ^e auatiaerl poteat." 

ii. •; *tt-.^ . _- .%i9tK>- 


mod bsisAtn XiLitiifozosiS i8{t.tei 

r n ni 

sK* r ^ arfl K>^ : 

" '-' id# «i bK^ftoilail ml 

-r- — ^71^ inumstm oUmimodf xfSM»t^ ait 


Wb mqt turn aalB» a flwl rocapit\ilatlan of Saint Thonas* 

■Bthodaiagical techniqaea for handling a poaltio . 

1« I'he Tla ^ yailtio technique. A proper AnalyBla is vorked 
out l:>y displaying the nreeiaa prefldses — principlea 
aad/or faeta [via • rat ionee - r aiilx j iQMn vbdctb the 
poaitlo dapeada for Ita truth and laaaning. the argu- 
aantation najr ba aawi aa folloaing a eortaln typical 
■ode ie«g« the via Platoaica j. Whan carried out In a 
thoroni:h-<i;o5ng and consistent fasWon, t'.'s rerjlta In 
the reduction of c^^lrdone to "purs" posltltms specified 
1^ a definite arguiaontatl on. • clear-cut critique la 
than poealble. It aagr follow anjr one of three lineat 
It oaQT attack (a) the via, ratlonea or radlx> (b) the 
poaltio itself ji or (c) both the rla and the pceltio . 

2« The poaitio-auc toritaa technique. A posit! o j opinio j 
mtff Be detached fron its proper phlloeophlcal back- 
growMi and beeoae thaa an iaeteiemiiiata but detendna- 
^^* POgJ^to * Tn ^Ws caam t^ free poaltio nay (a) be 
aueh that no faTcrable interpretation can be given it, 
(b) be nnnh that \t can lie vaguely and partially an 
pronred jaliqualiter j, (c) be aaeh that it can be det«r> 
?ilned, wlth«jut qualification, into a dlfforrnt philo- 
aopliieal ayaten [hoc absolute verom est quod aliqxiid 
est prltssun .... J . 

In the oaatt of (b) and (c), the precise aeaning of the 
ppaitio in Ita tmm foaetloi nuat be datensined not fToa the 
principles of its foraer or origlaaX philosophical fraBiaraart: 
but froa that into which it la newly inserted. \ eoaplete under* 
standing would require the disccrrery of the jl* »hich, in its 
aav forsalityj justifies and explains it. 

SlBoa then th«we elear-out pattenw of analysis and 
crlticisia are fcmally present in the methodology of Saint Thomaa, 
it Is obviooaly important to read hia l ittera In the light of 
this nsthodologieal background. For thle reaaon tbase prinelplee 
wl31 be used aa gvldas in studyim; the texts. 

;T *Rtx->?. "^o rro r. ti5 1- r.-^i .-?,--':.•- 'sTTfl i- flefc-T -wtrr -real •?. 



•• oh 9^ ^hKRE rvtJt^wuft van 9^t a' el^^ac^ 



RoHover, it Bhould b« reaeflibered that this chapter Is, 
in a sense, proliatlnary and that, eonseqwntly, tha ^tailed 
studlaa which follow will constitute not «\ly an aT>plication 
but also conflnsatory oridenee of tt» results here ohtained. 

fe' t has ■ ■a » nt 



The exaad nation of the complete body of the texts thex- 
selves led to a selection of certain major areas of stud^ , In 
the light of the principles discovered In the last chapter, im 
can now defii» our study of these areas with sone ctegroe of 
precision. We propose to exasino the texts within each area 
to deter?idnB what ratio-positio analyses of doctrines ejtpressly 
and nootnatiiB attributed to Plato and/or the Platonists Saint 
ThosRas tdaself presents within each of the selected areas and 
to obtain as clear an understanding of these analyses, of their 
iaport and interrelationship, as the InfonRation at our dispo« 
sal allows, whatever the results of this study, they will at 
least be fundanental and inaediately gzxrunded In the texts. 

We will begin with the aost obviwis data, for even a 
rapid survey of the mtarlals discovers, as obvious and clear 
ezavples, 8«vmi aajor texts in which Saint Thomas subodts Pla- 
tonic theories to analytic treatratBit and critique. Three of 
these texts — In Sent . l20j; In De Trin . llijj De Ver. 117J — 
are to be found in early works and show distinct differences 



1» • aoG <i^J!v a»9Ki3 m i M t !• -^|b»ie 'Oio afii>«fe noa nao 

•i» A >^^ -.^ii^ nl bsfxnuTzs -^'yfAtJtmsmi: hut, laMfsm^binii ^tf #«»»I 

tasXs EaoA WAJtrcto as ^^var^o^fb nL^tssfSaa Dili 1» -itivvnttni btqtn 
•iUT «•*?<"■'•' «--nr ?? ^rrftv 49itbr at sJxaif lotsa oewa c««XqBKX9 



tram the other four - In Mata . Il2if ».£• ^^aJl Ji §£• Crj«t, 
tlTji D« SjA. Sen. UJ — all <rf "bict* <«cur in Utar work.. 
TlMT* «r» also a large nuaJber of nlnor texta In which ths saM 
basic analyala la either brlaQy atated or alluded to. ttmf 
teocta will, of course, be used to oupploBent and confirm the 


A preliminary ax^ninatlon of the major texts reveals 

that all of then set the discussion within an historical fra»e- 
work. The earliest text, that of the conmentary on the Sen- 
tenees (which, it should be noted, is the only text in the en- 
tire commentary in which wj exollcit analysis of the Theory of 
TdMM Is attearpted), displays the sinplest and least developed 
forsi of the historical pattern. It does not begin with the 
treatwnt of pre-Platonic philosophy which is cooron to aU the 
other texts nor does it stress historical continuity. On X>m 
contrary, it laerely lines up a series of phllosophwPS wte •hwwl 
a ccawi •rroneoQS t>rlnclple. Idtowise, in the De Veritatg 
i^KA, the historical structure is of Blnlsal i«ipo«*^'anc«» In 
contrast, therefore, to these texts, the others not only Mkie 
use of an historical ftranework but lay stress upon both histori- 
cal continuity and doctrinal dowlopMnt. The in>res8lon, 
therefore, is that Saint ThoMS in fonmilatlnF «id refonMlatlnr 
his analysis tended to develop a sore artlcuLatod and acre hls- 
toHeal i«MS8entatlon. This iKpression can be conflnwd by other 
exaaples. Thus, In Be Verltate , 10, 6 ("Utnw sens tuMna eog- 


I« TK> boiisd's ^jHat^d toA^te at »Jm,. 

»»JS» H"I-». iutf- 

h99u ad ^&muoo Too ^.Llbit ->-^+ 

...-r^. '"itiir eBoJbaaenslb wli .♦-« — ^# 1© ££■ #imI# 

edi el (bttioa srf hfuerfe ^f ^itoXi^) 

' Htn waob iJ ri wit to tnol 

9,.',; F.f /I' "■ •» vi"'tiO«>.t«aq sif* t^^r^-f^'-'^ v *f»,*.irv,*^ 

bensde e Ll>k> "to asi-JOJ? iH ^»it«*« it ,X"t«*«ifwJO 


nltionea a MiiMlbilibus aeeiplat") the various opinions troated 
are arranged in a doctrinal pattern thus} 

I. Oir knowledge is totally from an extrinsic caiise. 

1. jTtas JlatonLstss it is tlirough participation in 
the separated fonas, 

2, Avicennat it is derived froa the intelligmiccs. 
n. Our lOKnrledge is totally fron an intrinsic cause. 

1. The human s(»il contains all Imoidedge. 

2« The soul itself at the presentation of the sen - 
slfallia fortas sjsallitudes of tbea within itself. 

XIZ* The opinlOTi of Aristotle. 

Tbs arranf^eant of opinions is here basod on a systesatic 

division tiaa principle of which is neither historical ortter nor 

historical continuity. iii»^»overf no reduction of poeitions is 

developed. Avicenna Is jttst an alternate to the Platonicl and 

im placed together with thaa because they fall under the cosnon 

rubric "a causa oxt^riori ." Qa the othor hand, the discussion 

of the eighty -fourth question of the first part of the St 

Theologiae is carried on within an historical framework set \xp 

in tte first article. This article s»vos fror the prlai philo - 

mnitil and tteir destructlc^ of certitude and truth to the mppmar- 

anee of Plato as a protagonist of truth. There is even a dra- 

■atic quality in the prasentation, a qiiality of sharp mwrsal 

froo the absurd extrene of Heraclitxis to the 

His autea supervenlens ^ato, ut possit salvare certaa cog- 
nitiooaa veritatls a nobis par Intalleotua babari....^ 

.!03 (Mi 

•«£. Id flolirlqv e«fT *IXX 

■,'ty ■ itrsXX mif \9 iR»J|t|MMi|» .|»w»VV^t ^r5 or:.* \o 


In pariieular, within the artielns tit* Platonic doctrln* 

10 aad* the osnter of dlacuasion and Avieenna and Ao^rustlna arm 

truited a» in eontimilty with ?lat(mia«. 

Saint Thfnr uses ttds historlBal aode of presentation 
▼ery frequsntl;^ in a n\aiber of CGnnoctioas. For exaaplo, in 
the elassieal text dT the So— a YbcoioKiae, tlie jprobleB! of the 
oreaticn of aatter is developed in historical continuity froa 
the efforts of ths earliest philosopbers throiigh those of Plato 
axKl Aristotle to the triuH|ibant solution of the " aligal " iriio 
finally considered ens in q oanttas ons » This netbod cf luresen. 
tation Is obviously derived froR Aristotle and depends particu- 
larly (and this will be coet obvious for the aqMsition of Fls- 
tenisa) ob the first books of ihe l.%taphyBia 8 and of the Dy 
Aajaa * In fact, it involves an acceptance of an Arlstotellaa 
view of the hlstorioal developaent of philo8^?hy and is governed 
l)gr pertinsnt Aristotelian observations wirdch ciaint Thooas hia- 
self repeats. Aristotle viewed the developnent of philosoptaQr 
as a gradual discovery «uad unfolding of the truth, a viev which 
is lllttstmted preaadnently in ius histoory of the four causes 
in the first book of the tf staphys i cs . Saint Thomas suffflBarise* 
and indeed generalises this view in tte renarki 

quod aatiqui philoea{>hi paulatia et quasi pede- 
teatlB intraverunt in cognitionea veritatis.^ 

This does not aeaa that 5aint Thooas •am the history of 

pfailoeophy ss a si^sle progreesiwe aoveoent nor t^t he presented 


atfi to t&ai Lit9l9ssiit Mid 

-►:rji. 315 34is »i.^i«HA KTrt fv ' -""- - »^* «t — "-t 

.: IMM »rr tlLf» 9Mf bnm) ^l^taX 

>?t fKl^ n? iroj^ aiiSt «««i£fr!«m»i ftoetol^ tee 

to \ ^^ IBM 8 M tsbvm te>a waob eitlT 

bwi.v. — - ^ - -^aaKHTK? altpttt « 93 x;lkfo«t>SJjki 


his lapidary mamuurisa of history alnply out of an interost in 

history as such. !ie had read and eoanented explicit stato- 

mnAm of the errors to be found therein aa mil as of the util> 

ity of such stijdy, 

Otilitas tmUut eat ilia, quia ant ex praedictls eorun In- 
▼enienus alind f^enus a causis praenuaeratie , aut sac^ia 
nirudwuu Ms quae Bodo dixiaos de eausis, quod, scilicet, 
aint quataor* 

Ostendit quonodo se hotines adinricetn juvant ad conside- 
nmdus vwliateB. Adjuvator enin unns ab altero ad consi- 
derationeis veritatis duplicltrr* Uno wodo directs. Alio 
■odo indireete* THrecte quidew Juratur ab his qui -rarita- 
%«m infveneruntt quia, slcut dlcttra est, dus unusquisqm 
pmMcedentiiAi aliquid de Yeritate invenlt, sisul in unum 
collectai"!, poelsrioros ^.ntroducit ad aagn«B veiritatis con- 
nltionew, Indireete vero, inquantoia prlores errantes circa 
vwdtatent, poitteHorlbus exercitii occMione© dsderunt, ut 
diligent! diseussione habita Veritas liapidixn appareret.^ 

The e<»aanding objective is, therefore, the discovery 

and better a]::^preciation of speculative truth. Saint Tbogns rs- 

asBbered this when be eaae to parallel Aristotle's study of the 

causMt vith a personal study of the separated substan^w, though, 

as a theologian, he raises the standard of truth to a nem level: 

lotenrientea igitur Sane torus angelorua excellentiiUB 
utrisqae d e p rc— re, ineiplendue vidwtor ah his quae da 
An^elis antiquitus huraana conjectura existliwvlt, ut si 
quid InveeMijme fidei consonm aceipiasnut, qfoae vero 
doctrinae repugnant Catholicae refuteaus.? 

The historical setting for Platonic theories is coa^iarao 

tively lacking in the earlier texts but, as has been said, be* 

COMBS aarked in the later ones. The effect of ^is presentatimi 

is to coabine in one exposition the historical and doctrinal 

geiiMls of Plato's the<^ies, to place ^ato in the foreground of 


^«rs tod All >i<^r» tm ' 


9 o^ •! 



the a{>r)08itlon and^ through the rcxiuctlon of othmr positions 
to hiSy to «qdM»is8 the prlvazy ariglnatlTe character of that 

Taking our clxxa, thtrefore, ffos Saint Thonaa hlBBOlf, 
w» maj construct on the baala of tbeaa najor texts a conpoelte 
ftiwiaintal pattern of historieal oontinoity iriiich falls, of 
itsalf » into the foUonlBg m»entst 

1, The pre -Platonic i^losophera (pariHarlly, the advocates 
of tha "flux** theory) ^vho prasant car tain prasuppoai- 
tlons for Plato and prepare tho stage for his entrance. 

2. Plato who at oiwe continues and ro^rorses the prerlous 


3« Saint Augustine vho coctinuas yet rejects Plato. 

km Aristotle aad/or Saint Thoiaas* 

Bov, while the cooplexlty of tha prohleas and tha awi- 
dianee will not pendt ua to follow this pattern step hy step, 
it will serve a« & useful frasie of rafarance and will gaida the 
diaet»8i<»i in a gwiaral way. 

As wa have z^on, the pre-Platooic aovesMst is not part 
of the text is the coKsantary oa t)^ Sentences . It first a^^ears 
in the coaasntary <» tha De Yrinitate of Boethios and tbanaftar 
is, with slight variations, a standard eleisant in tte ajqMaltion. 
Qaeause of its relative unifornrlty and indapefldemee^ wa shall 
davota a separate and uaified stoc^ to It. 


tevoB , 



^e shall first proscmt Saljit Thomas' esqTosition of the 
pr«-Platonic SKKaent and follow It Issaediately with an examina- 
tion of Saint Thcnas* critique. 

Sect! cm 1 
Saint Thoaas' Exposition of the Relevant Theories 
The first philosopters who studied nature, the priai 
naturales « were. Saint Thoaas telle xaa, aloost all sateirial- 
iets. They held the 8laq:>le aaterialistlc position that only 
bodies existed and Hmy observed, awreover, that the world of 
bodies WAS characterised by indetensinac^ and change. The 
whole of sensible reality appeared to then to be in constant 
■otitm. This aspect of the Euterial world they ensphasixed un- 
til nature, in their view, becaxoe so fluid that it totally 
eluded the grasp of kriowledge* Thus the early philosophers, by 
str^sing natter and notion, arrived at the theory of pure flux, 

■otus qua talis » and so destroyed the only possible source, for 


the», of truth and certitude. Kot only was nature undergoing 

chanfce, but it was changing constantly and in every respect, 



•'•^ .riT ■^rf'^ nimodf inis^ t»i««8 , e»Uig?»n 
lo ^j<f^ (iffftyotor: ,J»iirt9«r^ \9d8 ban b6f^tx» n»tl»6 



and, coiwequently, at no point achieved or 

sat* character. How than could one pronounce a Judgwmt on a 

nature which, like a ruahing streaa, had already changed before 

the leat syllables tiere uttered? Ihe extreme developeent of 

this r>oeltlon afspeare 1b Heraclitus and Cratylua, of whoa the 
latter j?ave up at last evwn the um of Uaguage and reeorted to 
gestures, hoping in the rapidity of novewRt to catch the 
fleeting truth of a changing world.'* Thoa the aearch for truth 
to which the philosophor* were pledged by profession pulled up 
abruptly in a blind alley, for if only bodies exist and if 
their indeterminacy awl changing character are so coaaolete am 
to render then incapable of being objects or sources of truth 
and certitudo, ttero is no trutii and no certitude. Not only ;, 
would any science of matter and sensible reality be lapoeelble; 
by the sne token there would be, for thea, no science, no 
truth, no certitude liiatever. 

This skeptical conclusion was streactlMMWd, BoreoveTa 
by an appoal to the so-called errors of MMBe. ThaM wtOm it 
obvious that sense waa essentially relative and unreliable! if, 
«wn, only aense cognition existed, there was no weans of at- 
taining absolute and certitudliial truth. 

It was at the Boamt of this relativistic and skeptical 
crisis, whs* the ^nuut of pMlceophy seeaed played out and a- 
waitlng only the descent of the curtain, that iiaint ThosiaB In- 
trodueea Plato aa the protaconiat of trutti and certitude, of 

««l0(f b»5htt>£i9 "C^arsls fistC ^aujenafa y,j!ttrf«arj & »:ikl .rfeJW* 


•« ito't j«! -ujiQw arsvfii^ sT»>k>t Miatt <Mlt ^ 

« .'db 

L- lie ^flecKia «rl;f H &tm it 

fin h'- Tiatii . 


8el«nc« and phUosoi^. Plate's porpes* was to •stabliah tha 
cttrtltuda of Intellaetuol tcnowled^ for ha had no olnd to ac> 
coipt ths liwritablllty of the conclnaions the past «aa forein^ 
upon hlTti. Ttana his Intentions, realistic and intellectual , 
vara, to tha alndl of Saint Tboww, entirely honorable. His 
strong conrictlen of the reality of absolute trvth and his al» 
■est relifdoos devotion to It ars tha nev aotlvaa ha l»4n{ts to 
tha ao fsa e nt of phllMtophlral thouf^t. Saint 7bo«e underlines 

these notlTBS. Plate wished "to save the position that eertaia 

iOKwledge of truth coald be had by va throoi^ the intellect;" 

te p gQCse d sd "to the asptyii^ oat of the opinions, of tl» first 

naturadists.* Salat Thooaa ealls hia '^aost eager seeksr of 

truth," and repeats the old atoaty ^at Plato had mitllated hin- 

■slf to be free Aroa the distractlcMiB of sex that he aigfat con« 

Umplatm truth vith greater deTOtion. 

How, then, did Plato propose to avoid the conclusions 

of the "flowing philosophers" and rescue philosophy fro* their 

flood and flux? He had hlaaelf been a disciple of Cratylos, 

ths Ban la vhoai the thsofry of pure flux found Its raost cosplete 

and rsdlesl exr)onent. from hia Plato had learned these theories 

and, though his allegiance passed later to Soe rates , he contln- 

«sd to accept the basic position that all sensible nature «as in 

constant chanra and, consequently, could nevor yield or ground 

certain knovled^. If sclenoe vere possible, it would have to 

find ob;}ecte elsewhere than in the sensible world. 

mTA .-ra? ?;*«'. f»ft .-».;? tec* ngQats^ u*^s4H ^x/it^aoXi^^- 

•T iKSfe- .■? '■♦© arf«J 1» f?.-. .'«wi «dJf 

4fe "Jc ' art* t© iiolt^iviK»o SWO*** 

ot aisfrtwf «! '^sr^J^ir iR??T sr** '*!$ ♦•• n-f rx^f.^r?'*- ftt»»J^X«« #iiori 


HgreoTBr, Plato was irllllnf; to ctnieaeie Uw d«c«ptiv« 
and ralatlTs charaet«r of aenaa knowlodxe. Science » truth, and 

cartitoda could not ba a nattar of corporaal aonaation or da» 

paad upon It. 

Plato, then, innild accept the vary preadsaa mhich led 
faia predaeaaaora to a denial of certitude and yet would eaeapa 
their concluaiona by tranaeendinc, tlie linitatiaBs of tbeir 

I. Let the reality of the sensible world be as dabious 

a« one Ijked, plve it over to baeoadlng, acience would find oth- 

er objects — aliud g^aia e ntltt» » The senses of the body 

night be deceptive, relative, iriiolly unreliable; truth would be 

found by another nteans, by the ladapandant intellect. Plato, 

thMrefore, both in ■staptatyslca and epistaaolot^, oppoaea the 

■aterlallsa of the early Haturalista. The Platonic nonent in 

Q ra ak tboucrht is tfam a reversal} yet certain poaitiona of the 

aatarlalists are carried oirer as the initial stops of Plato's 

own argnaeat by which, paradoodeally enough, he will aoont to 

a pure, laaatorlal reals and to the life of pore intelligence. 

TtauB Saint Thooas fai«ielf places the startlag-polRi of 

Plato's argueent in a despadr of and disdain for the order of 

••Bse — a jayta&a* wMeh Plato aoooptad tram his predaoassors 

in Greek tbaru«:ht. The sensibilia could not be objects of true 

knowledge beesaae they were identified with pure beooaiiiR. 

fka sonsos ^luld not be sources of certitudinal knoidwifis since 

tta^y ware deceptive and relative. But Pl^to Introduced another 


•<}< jw tetfe^eii!: « tut ^tn' bXuoo ebtf^Mm* 

fc«.v =.-.,«. ^pipr gif^ 4^c|^;K»e JbXaov ^^(mW 4&#«£1 (j>t?» 

h:ft-v te Jui2R9l} « oJ^ 8itfyi3»»«»!i»«>%i alii 

• *"-•»-•' ••' .■'r-i'r,.,«,5| ^gf \i^ y^llmm MfJ* t*! *m-: — ^ 

»i 90 9« tore 1£ mrl^ ,&^ii±I 

at flJt rf#Mf ^vwtlvtmdi 
«t 3 «d> *o ontU,- u 

i^ rfw fj ."'yana _ ., ^ i i^j .Iceawsru ««► 

!• inioq-^' '9d^ esftfiXq lixtaejbl mecxsi^ -ff ta<^ vavlf 

4» citf ^hsft bXaoe x at 

0' ■ ^? %0 ««»«»« ad Joa blM»i -"* 


of kotmingf Xhm Intellect, and in this differ«d froa hie 
pr«4»eesaors • Bm «as« oorooTor, coovinceii that thsre vas 
ewrtitudinal intellectual knoKleOge, file wxt »^P$ therefore, 
«ttB to deternine the exieteaee and nature of the entities to 
efaleh seiem^, definition and Intelligenoe in general could be 

B«t before foUocrln^ out the rest of the Platonic argu> 
aent ne shall exasdno Saint ThocMS' eritiqiie of the initial 
preaisds which Plato accepted aiKi developed. 

Section 2 
Saint Yhotaae' Critique c£ the Pre«Flatonic Yheories 
In the De Spiritmalibus Creaturis Saint Thooas points 
out that in arguing against the early philosophers concerning 
these preaises Aristotle doee three things. Fi»t, he estab- 
lishes that there is s«mi stability in the sensible world. 
Secondly, ho defends within certain linitations the validity 
of sense kw awledge. Thirdly, he proves that bttyflcd the pmmeu 
of sense knowledge th«^ is Intellect wiiich 5^ges of troth. 
All of these elenents appear in the eoi»entary on the fourth 

book of the Metaphysics in a section to which iiaint Hhamaa is 

el«arly alluding. 

In a key text within these lectlones Saint Thiiss ap- 
proacheK the flux theory froa two standpointa and, in virtue 
of thea, analyses it into two converging aetaphysical views. 


... Si ^, _.._ 

•rf. '. ..iIi^*lll tJSiij nttJWifitlafc a^-^-'- 

9 px.^-& 'jMMdT iKtAe flHrtMon liorts Mr #hm 
>fe bus ba^wrtras oimf^ ifslrt 

fli ^ >« Bit a^M;^ 1*1.* 

rut* «/^ :'fL. „__ aiit fU lue^qfi aj, ,-- — , %» SSX 



R38 first awproach is through a consideration of inde- 
taralnacy. Thus, ha tells us that the early naturalists real" 
iB«d that ther* was a deal of indetenrlnacy In iiatxire. There 
la, of coarse, and It Is due to the presence of natter. For 
■atter of Itself Is Indetensined and Is open not only to chang- 
ing but even to contrary detersl nations. The deteneinatlon in 
question is In the order of fcra« Roir a fwaal detertid nation 
la, in llMted beinR, a necessary condition of existence. Ifence, 
it is also the very being of matefrial things that is open to 
Changs f the very act of existence which, conditioned by satter, 
la precariously detenainod. 

Row it was this indeterainacy and Instability which the 
early fcturalists discovered in the material world and wMch 
glviM a certain show of truth to their poeition. For insofar 
as being is indeteminate, it cannot be detoRriJiatelj knomi. 
Since, therefore, tho Haturalists were preoccupied with the in- 
detemlnate character of aaterial being, it is not surprising 
that they concluded that the senaibilia could not give rise to 
dst«nd.ned and true knowlsd^* 

let to »aintain a ptaare position justifying their com- 
plete rejection of truth and certitude, the indeterainaey oust 
be regarded as absolute. But to push Indetersdnacy this far 
is to diminish form to the vanishing point and to destroy, with 
it, the existence and reality of the sensible world. This is 
obviously false, ftur *!«atter is determined, howewr precariously. 

— "^tw 

ai r 

-^,-r ~Tf 

111 %> XMb B aftr (Tta^ St^ bwel 
'•' x^stttfCT) 9i rtvnt 4twl sal 

' - -tji: of ,«i 

- > 

•(U r< nor M KCii 


by fom and ttais possoasea, at any fdLvan maamat, a deterainBd 

MM* Given tue dsteradx^ation of fora^ and eaaa , kncwledgo be- 

GOMS posaible, at least ax parte aenalbllima . 

In the second place » the early philosophers «are all 

too aware of tbe varied noiveaent in nature* In a way this is 

not surprising! aotion and change are obvious facts^ falling 

iMMdiately under sense peroeptioa and intruding constantly 

upon our «3i|Narieace* For "Uiis reason i>aint Thoisias calls Aris- 

totle's arguaents f^on siotian iaore oanifest and certain, and 

for the saae reason Aristotle considers the exaggerations of 
tha«« naturalists laore reascmablo than tiie Panaenidaan theory 
of absolute iffisobility* Moreover, the fact of SMition is one 
of the prioary data of natural philosopt^ as is also aatter and 
its potentiality. That there is a science of nature was taken 
as so obviwis by Aristotle and Saint Thar>«s that they could use 
this fast as a locus of arguHentatio&. i^bat destroys the pos- 
sibility of a science of oobilo and snterial being appeared to 


to refute itself in thla very e(»%ltisi(xi* 

let 9 if a theory of rigidly imadbila being aade natural 
science iaoossible, the philosophy of flux caae to the 
in^issa by a different roftd. In tJiis philos<q»^y nature 
viawad as a continual proeass of becoming, 5.nvolvlng not anraly 
a perpetual ■at aine nt but change Uiat was continuous under every 
aspect* v>hatavi«r types of change aight a% discerned, evaxy 
type Biust be in process at evazy acaent. The pure poeitlcm of 

b&- r^ fnEj» 9& «e«»a»c«>q «aii«t' bos cao^ xtf 

ftatat^ 9IM14B vAbntr 

\C", •? *-^«»mi aii^ aedt o£q ^ion Watii>'»ai#*H i^ — 

.-^. . — ^ — -„.^j«* •*:«•:_ 2 .^IXa^ , -.- 

-■09 «rf# *£:ci. <b tvaol « 3« #»sl 

o# ^ ,^ .^ _-.-__.: te!» mUOm ^ fc -- * '!« y jti.. --. 

;__ apf » 1© i^ . «aWl 

\.-- .. -4> imi ■ ■ . , 


tte flux theory dtmamim, therofore, that thero be no points of 
pmxmumuem, haa ov mr mamntmtj aod fleeting, no rest, no toms 
of motion* We are, therefore, forced to the consideration of 
motion without tmnm or subject, laotya qua talis. Now nothing 
ean b« afflraed or thought of an object precisely insofar as 
it is uadsrgolnf? change. "Quod enl» rtutatur de albedins in 
nigredinea, non est albvm nee nigraie In quantaa Matatnr ." Pire- 
elssly, iBBofar as it is in process, the object escapmi dat«r> 
adttatlonf and, eonsequontly, cannot be ths object of kncwledge. 
If, then, the terBdni a quo and aA quaei arm reriovec!, elneo they 
vould be DOints of relative rest, if the object is dissolfed 
into the processes themselves, no aspect would resaln exespt 
that of pure not? an — in quantuig autatur . Fca* etxaiq}!®, if w» 
•tienpt to think of a trip in which no person or thinp would be 
■■king tikB trip «» a trip which would go frora no placs to no 
place, the Intellif^iblllty of the trip would vanish at the saaie 
tlas as its objective possibility. The theory of pure flux 
thus would bwish all intalllgifalllty and dstandnation tram 
the world; the skeptical conclusions of Heranllttis and Cratylus 
■Mfld inevitably follow. "Rt Ita non solun etia» noa potest 
hose bis loonl de re all qua anteqpMS ili«p<iltt> aHtetur sed 
etiflB noc semll" Ihatever knowledfe aifibt be possible would 
itself be wholly relative and indetomlnate, for knowledge 
OMild not eonfom to any dsftaminsd aode of being in things, 
natural i^tilosocrtiy would be ^wpossible aand even the sinplest 

Of tt 

lid! — ^dtfK rK (iPt«^ $isoiiim a»ttoa 

-^5 . q nJl At trw T" --• "^ 

sanon »«» jr < 
^ sa M£ « _; ^^ ♦AJ titrtJ- ,tl 

i tin Onisad blucm 

*tSKJus, !««<. «»ii)» MK&aS am stl is* .««XCol x£j3»*l»«r> ^r«,i^ 

fct\ If *tXt««s 9«n tBlii#«i 

•gtel!' — . ^^aiaalffttti/ijai fan anrltsIVK \iewlMt ad lUmtl 

Sri % ■ - ton i- 


dfltcndnate proposition (troundless. And, if tbm aBtarlAl world 

OTCB1W— d iim whole of roallty, «a would sottk in Yain for cer- 


Sftlnt Thoaasy therefore, coiieldera indeed that truth 
and certitude in natoral scienoo and in our ordinary kaamledtm 
ef the naterial world do require cone stability and eoae deter- 
■inatlon In thini?9. It is the eeee rei which aaasxires and ia- 
4aed gr ee ad e the truth of propoeitioras about the naterial world, 
and the ease auat be according to a deteradnate node ithe nodaa 
datMnal nates eseendi in rebus j, that is, according to a deter- 
Binate fom. The deteminstiaR aay not be neramaxiti cannot be 
^ j ur e etemalf yet, while it is, it can .iustify truth and cer- 

Whm and while ;>ocrates sits, the proposition *3tmn0mt 
sits" is true and certain, for, while he sits, it is neeensarily 

true that he site. Let hia stand, and the truth of the prapo- 

sition as significatire is indeed changed. The conditioned 

stability in smislble nature does not explain all the ianobility 
of knowledge; but it is absolutely necessary if any tnie state - 
asnt is to be mde of the seisible world. 

¥« aust notico, too, that tt^ very constitution of ma- 
terial beings is h«re in question. hat vanishes in the theeK7 
of pure flux is, netaphysloally speaking, the fora. let with it 
tlw -wry esse wanlsbes as well. For whether we af^roach the scn - 
slbilia froB the standpoint of vare indetnroinacy or froa that 


bine ,trt^ ^ar-rCiffiffQis a»Ms^a»:^ssi siiunmrdi^ 

-TOO -xai y^ uiii <,^^.'-I«e^ V> HtledB adi* !:■ '' '^■'T' 

?>a-t »j|»» adtf sir ^I nmatlbt nt acl#«iia 
s »^ jKflJtfneooA 9<;f i«9ii ♦•«» «if# turn 

X .9 erf a£JMir ««»1 (OJte^HO teut vext •! "9#l» 

X.< 9 fern *Mb atc#aM aXdlWMa ii<' "i^ 

Xo«tdx af il Jkntf f9 1 la 

^bl'jom »ieii^ ^ te «Iwb 9^ 9* *t Jmm 

$t M*" ■*-'^ .-''''■ "^ -'^^^ -■■ ■;« v£JtB- ,- — ?■« «»i JwX* ««wt Ite 


of pure motion, tha ultisaie tern of analysis la a blank nothim^. 
To reatore esaa rscjulrea tho rastoratien of doterainationt hence 
of fors, and this fan vast bo iotrinslc to tha balag Itaalf « 
sinea It la ita Bodos datermi natus aaacndl , Tha baing and truth 
9t mtarlal raalltlaa Is rehabllltatad by an Aristotelian fom 
boooaa a Tboraiatlc rsodus eaaandl . We shall return to this later, 
but It is essential to atreaa that a «orld cf pore beeoniog can 
be aaintainad abovo the level ot non^^eiag enly by aetaphyaieal 
8lelght-of-4iaixi. Alraadgr, in ita first ata^, Platonisa has in- 
YolTBd itself la nataphysieal difficulties. «han beiag dia- 
aolirwi vhoUy into beeofaiBR, baeaalng is izidistinguiahable froa 
non^being. This la tha aaaalBg of Ariatotle'a and Saint Thoaiaa* 

Saint Thnaaa r— uw s a tha stalled Aristotelian poleade 
la tha pithjr reaark that Ariatotle ahows ia aanjr «aya, galti ~ 
pllciter , that there la stability in saterial reality. Aria- 
totle indeed enplegrs his umisual ability in riultiplying argu- 
■ents. He argues that his advorsarias have erred in conaidnr- 
oBly local motiooiy vhich can indeed be continuous, vhila 

IgBorlBK qualitative or foroal (^wns* ^^ which absolute conti- 


Buity is not poasible. ~ They have ^ad«> on unrarranted canar- 

allaatian fx^on a few easaa in which chantse is unlnterruptea. 

TlMgr are ■■— t ia r n that there is aa iaaobile first mamr* But 

the aain farce of tho argtaent enoloorB the central analysis of 
Ariatotle *s natural Dhilosooby, and indeed of eorcon senae. 

«'^ ttj^t t^ ^mt frwBl eMf Ua ^se'uy% %» 

"!_ lit* c'*rft -hf«!B»t i<7Uii| Aii^ lit 

-"K' e«i^°(a»-tfinrufi old imdi a^t^ie sJI •al'nMi 

•l e09 •(( mo doj^it^ ,A(t J>tA(K UaoX v'E'*^ ^^ 

-ittfl9j n? iw etee «vai( ^s^- .ikltftKsoq aoa ai Y.ixua 


against this pceition. For the analysis of notion mTvals that 
la tiM -wry proeeaa of change the tarainm ad quae is already 

ImmhJjib pvaaant, that an ijtasoblle subject is nacasaary and an 

•isnt, previooaly in act, is requirad. Thua is iiaplicatad 

thm entire Aristotelian structure and order of subatanea and 

aeoldenty of natter and farm, of rslationa and of the causea. 

All this Saint ThcRue a^ain susraarises in lapidary faahiont 

It mst be said that eTery notion nreaupposas aosething 
ianobile; for when a chani^^e oecura in quality, substance 
reasina lawshawged and when tha substantial foara is eiuMfad« 
natter renaina unehanciied. Moreonror, nutable things have 
iiiohlle relationships; tyms, although Soes^tea is not al- 
vays seated, it is nonetheless iinrautably true that when he 
sits, he reraalna in one place. And for tiila raaaon thars 
is nothir^ which provonts one fro:^ having iranobile knowl- 
•dga concerning chan^rlng things .^' 

tlfaare, therefore, Plato was willing to accopt the flux 

tbscry of his r^wdscessonr and evoD to use it in his own argu- 

■Mftatlcsi, Saint Thenas was quite uBvilliaK to nake any such 

concession, (te the contrary, ha oaintained a preciae analysis 

af the structure of natarlal being, allowing both for that kind 

of eontingancqr which arises fvon the presanee of natter and that 

kind of necessity and detemiiintlon which fona inposas. Mate- 
rial reality thus receivea a definite aotapliyaical status and is 

snan to ]>eaaasa • dat^wined mm». ^ the aana token also, in 

vlrina both of its structure and of its natationa, a natarial 

entity Involvea in its explanation the systen ef the cauaes. 

«hat Plato draws fron the earlier philosoohers is a eon- 

Tiction that the naterial senaible world is a realn of pure con- 


to awMMSqr "^ at 

©IS . ., . . -,,l »,*' - -M 

1» iMBDl: In* '»»4«t "to ^ 

'. stiiU Ut 

— r«# i«r-- '^-- >.-<f-~-- stW T-! ~ — ^* 

>. i-p ft>ai ' *ifbe,h :^t9t£Jt 

bnJbi -< . ...rr ^ — -^ SMfad»a Tu> trwfotf^m tM ^ 

nl «•«£• Motel n.t«c «tf ^ ;ib • mutator o^ r 

lii iti "ia turn « 1 mti to rttot; e(El<dNr 


-mo • el cr iM^'^i emartb oi^n ita^ 


ilaftncy. In whieh no iwiioblllty^ no fixed daternd nations and 
no necessities can be found. r>aAnt Thonas denieg the very poe> 

sibllitj of such a world ^^ "nihil enlm eat adeo eontlaB«aB« 

qoin in se allquid neeaaaarlTui habeat." There is in eoz*po- 

raal reality the dataminaiion of fora with its conaaquent 

ontologieal necessities t <*lieoa8sita8 anten conaeq«dltur rati ohm 

foraaa, quia ea quae consequuntur ad fcri^Ba, ex neeeaaltate in- 

sunt." There la the necessity of existential fact — 

"necesse eat eua sedere^ doa sedet." There are the necessary 

involv6<t!ents and ralations of nutable realities: 'Socrates, 

etei non seaper aadeat, taaan isnobilitar oat verua quod qoaxKlo 

sadet in uno loco manet." There la ewB the penaaaeaea of 

natter: "cua transautatta* fonra substantlalis, reaaoet materia 

iBBabills.'' Yet;, all these ontological necessities are 

"caused" and contingent necessities. This aaaa lBg paradooc 

Saint Thoaaa can adait and aaintain because of the ontolo^cal 
structure of corporeal beings. Thus, though fora a^y determine 
necessities within a being and its operations, since it is iu>t 
being but of being, it can siaultaneously remain as dependent 
and contingent oa tlie esae w hich actuataa it and aa aoblle aa 
the aubjeet in idiich it is received. 

Thus, where Plato sees in the sensible world only becort- 
ing and pure contingency. Saint Thoaaa finds it a world of con- 
tingent and conditioned necessities and, therefore, a poasihle 
object of scientific study. 

-it? i! ■-^■j? h.^ i&^SBtttpaeao^ Mop b© mSxp ««si ._ 

^ 09V9 •< •*ntfr " .Smtinm 09oI r>fi« at 4 

ai: -^ .r.'r nduB Mnol f \m%i wmefl tf^ 

WliL^^'ilifyr ■ . T JO •7 

-rm^md \ >• •rf^ tit letfit a^aX^ eisidsf ,atni7 

.in . -.- ^, r yl «tmf- ■'^"'^■'^l $aiMR ,»""» '^^♦^no* »«M| bn pii 


S«int Thomaa has also iadieated that ths 4«sp*lr of ibe 

ordsr of s«ii80 mas dsttpsnsdi by a conrictdoa Umt Utm s«as«s ar« 

vnraliabXe and deesptlvw* J^ow iila dlroct and overt ansver here 

was to propose the livltod realisa ef Aristotle as tiw true 

Tittw of seas* knonledge, 

&)coBdlyj Aristotle sbovad that tbe judganot of sense 
is true c<xicernlnfr the proper s ens lb lles but ia decel-red 
in respect to tte coBSMn sensiSiles and even xore so with 
regard to the aenslMlea per accidena .^^ 

Saint ThonaSf of coarse, distinguishes sliarply between 
sense and intellect and ^et !salntaln8 an ordered unity of opera- 
tion between t-'«-. Tn this operation, thR formal jodgiaent of 

truth is reserved to the intellect and the senses cannot iapose 

an errotieous JudRpsent on the intellect. 

How, Insofar as the senses display theaselTos to Intel- 
ligence, no error is possible concerning their own affections 
or operations. If, however, we view the senses as repiresent- 
ing things, the distinctioi alreadgr referred to b«coK»s neces- 

With regard to the proper sensibles — what is known 
priBO et per se as color by the eye — error is possible indeed 

but only in a fer eases and when the organ is not in a noi'mal 


The coaaon sensibles — perceived per se but not primp 

and by core than one sense — are emsMrated as five: aotion, 



rest, Ruaher, figarti and else. In respect to these, sense 

err and nore often than in the case of proper sensibles. 


vsK •(. >b boa sit .( 


, ♦" 

: t^oT<^ 

h\': •a*j:.«»-<' *^' 

.'^ i<i "m^^ *& o 

O'^aiq .i^ ««Idiaci!v 3 MfT 

Tt sns — • c>aa»a soo atiii worn ^ bos 


tZkiL'^r^iSE ';t»qu^; to vafi^ ihu oi iuu^,? ^;«.7^x c:^^. ^^iw -i-u» ^^aa 


^^ SS£ ac<?l<teM» MRBiblA doas not dlreeily affsot tbe 
•MM* but is connected vith « prop«r or ccnaMi sMwlble. Tbm 
thlA colored figure as such produces a siailltude in sanse 
i^pw aej but it is as a aatter of fact a nan. h© say «« see 
the Ban. "ilaxT is then a sanslbils per ascidans . In saeh 
cases tbe poesibllity of error is perfecUy obvious. ^^ 

tfomover^ the sense power tenasd " phaataaia " by Aris« 
totle intxx)duceB yet another occasion of error into sense kmnrl- 
edge. For since phantasia is dapsnieni wpoa the external smises 
and is, therefore, jaore reaofved fToa the aensibile agent, the 
resulting siadlitude is weaker. Moreover, the ph«it<Biia can 

operate in ths abamioe of a sense object ami for thla reason is 

vore open to error. 

Bmee neither Saint Thosaa nor Aristotle mintains that 
ths senses are autoaatlcally ianiot fro« error. On the con- 

trazy, they would regard a doctrine of this aert as obviously 
raise. la amy ways our senses are occasions of error, and a 
critical Judgeent of the intellect is necossar:' to ovorccRe the 
liodtations of sense. Thus « wide field is left opw for the 
critical egairi, nation of sense ioBOBlisdge. 

■bat thiqr do aaintain, honvn*, — and this is tlie es- 
sential point h«ro — is that the senses are reliable sources 
of knowledge and are rightly and necessarily integrated into 
the total process of hioum knowing. Se have laauulsod Saint 
I' direct answer to the Platonic presise. A detailed 


.rsst at «nit'4l'Y b 
- laxftt l!t» 't9Siam « out vf tt iaa imt *i»if^l 

«i' - ■) 

8t t ^S 4 lo MOMKf* CAT Oi 


.f'5«n;« o;r oaq* arms 

- ■ - .^7? 

'S •X4 897^' 

~M ait 9t tthlf be& — ^nmnnmA «aif^a.tMi •& ^^osfii^ ^<(^" 

&<>,.. ; siao^X^ od^ e# tovvflUB ^"aaiTlb *Maotf7 


iBvaatlgation of this answer is not neceasaiy; Saint Thaamm do&a 
not hiBtfelf elaborate Its detailsj and tlMy aaka little differ- 
ence to the aain point. 

Thna« while Plato is willing to eurrender tbe whole 
order of eewe, giivinig the senalbilia ovor to pure becoming and 
ip>anting ttie deceptive character of sense knowlodge. Saint 
Thonaa firmly refaaea to yield on el^ior pcdnt. To the first 
he oppoees the analysia of raaterlal bein;; iriiich IncltKlGa recog- 
nition of fora aid eaae aivl Itxieod of the integral pattern of 
eaaeee; to the second ho opposes the qualified realism of Aris- 
totle. Tn this initial Ofpc»itian steta^id^Tsical aa well as 
epistenoloi^cal diffex<£aMi a^ already inrol-ved, 

^^hen, howeYer, Plato now asserts, af^nst his miteri al- 
ls tic predecessors, the exlatonce of intolligeftte distinct frota 

sense, both Aristotle and Saint Tbooas stand with his. Since, 

ncreovtr^ Plato afflraa the reality of true certitudinal knowl- 

edfre, the problen for hia now llets in discovering the objects 

of scientific knowledge which cannot be fouzxl in the senBlbilia 

or through tlie senses. At this point, t!ierefoore, Hm Platwdc 

arguoent aores to the deteraination of anotiier kind of being, 

aliud genus entlttB . 

c*ob utm J or: i^i Miwiuair^ tStt» Is tt^^ik^l^aRvaJt 

'"^' -> t'ji jBtlXM •J^ o^A «£ibfair ,«<h^ 

Jhr c^»»\7« t||iafl^ sMwft' 

' Id ffoJbPtff 
HijSi of ••£M 

•Hn^,.^ -- > a^ will iNWf flJM "irt «Mi£A>Tft «f<* *.iau» 


The prv-Platoaic aonnit bam laid ont cwtain j»>esuppo- 
aitions and prepared tha historical situation for the Platoaie 
■p — n t itself. When we turn bo* to an exaaina^on of this sec- 
oad stage of analysis, mm find £>a.1nt TImmmm redticln^ the Pla- 
tonic oositlon to certain basic principles ( radix ^ fundaiaentua , 
rati ones ) nMeh, within the major texts and r«en in those pre- 
senting a briefer analysis, appear in different fcumulae and in 
varying j>att«rM of relationship. An exaaination of the texts 
yields Uiis list of prlneiplest 

Pleree <migi antiquonaa ex intentionibos intelleotis 

Judlcliw! rent"; nsturjiliuw sMmorc voliiprunt: unde lu-iecurt- 
que inveniuntur eonvenire in aliqua intentiene intellecta, 
voluerunt quod coi!nnun5.carent in una re.^ 

Sed hie defeetos aceidit ex eo quod non distinxlt [sc, 
Platoj quod eat per se t^ eo quod est seeundua aeddens. 

• * * 

... Plato ea quae rossunt senarari secondus intellectuiBf 
penrtMttSt etlaa seeondiuB esse s«pacmta»3 

... Lao, Platoj oredidit quod aodus rei iHtellectas in soo 

eBEfi sit sicut eodus Intell? -'^»'^^ ^^-^ ^^i^ar.t 

... cum Isc* Platoj aestiaaret grinmB cogn^tiorten per podiun 
alieuins sTcllitudinis esse....^ 


-f*'!-.;- *:• 


..«Jtec>,'-; . Lfc..eiu k'-* -• -■— ^i» meJb^ia 

M-' -, « .i3»*..WI«» 

J>«0 n^nA turtuT'' 

• &oii'U»w9» diiiiMi .'JbUfMJ 

ova oi M. -I'io Lo^&T? .jaj ... 



••• Cm* Plstoj crodldit quod forma cognlti «x nsoMisitate 
alt in cognoscente eo raodo quo eot in nognito.^ 

... quidas-, ad inquirendiss verltatoa de naturi rt»nnn, pro- 
4MMMruHt «x ratloBlbtta lnt«lliglbilibas, et hoc fait ^^o- 

prliiH Platonicoru!3....7 

... aecundufc hoc quod Intellecttis verltaten corTioBcens 
aliqua ••orsnm ai^rehmndit praeter natural scnsibiliioi re> 
rum, sic existimavit esse aliqua a sensibilibus separata.^ 

... secundum quod erat aliould stwpllciuc in Intelloctu 
secundua hoe priua erat in ordine rorua*? 

Since, in mary casas, these different foraiilae presuppose 
•eaeaiiat different backgrounds and approaches to the radix of the 
via Plat<mica > separate consideration will be given thes* There- 
after tlieir interrelati<m will be exasined. 

iiectioQ 1 
7te "SlBllitude" Principle 

That a eooceptiMi of knowledge involving a "8inili^uie* 
is the source of Plato's error is mqplicitly stated only in 
S.T, 152 J though it say be foood in the coiaBentary on the I)e 
Aniraa and is sugrrested in other texts. 

The starting point of the analysis in the Su— a lies, 
thMVfore, in this conviction of Plato's that knovled^ requires 
a slallitode. The ^neiple of the assiwdlation at the knoeer 
•ad the known ms coaaon to all the uicient philosophers, in- 

cluding both the Materialists and Plato, with the sole exception 
of Anaxaforas. And though thmy erred in interpreting the prin- 
ciple, they were foroed by reality* as it were, to soas dla 



to IS 

-4U « e «# MHnM *«* oca 

understaadllnK of the tn)th. For It is true — and S%1nt Th. 
ft«quently repoata this — that knowl«(I|i!« does taks rilnco 
tJHPoogh an wsiadLLation or aiadlitod*.'' Saint ThonM had road. 

in the first book of Aristotle's T]« telwa j an account of the 

interpretation of the principle by the ancient phi losonhers . 

All those iriio attempted to investignte the nature of soul by 

stwdylnjr knowledge espleyed tte nrinclple " bIbIIs ajbsili eog ~ 

nescltur " and argued fron It that the structure of toe soul 

■nat eorr<»pond to the structtire of the reality knoen. Conse- 

Kfoently, whatever were the principles and elwenta of reality, 

tfasse iBOSt also be ths principles of the sool's substance* 

Those, therefore, who held that the whole of reality 
was naterlal, r>oslted as the natare of the soul whatever mate- 
rial element or elements they had seirerally selerted as funda- 
aental in sensible beintm. Thus Enpedocles, who naintainad six 
basic principles, earth, water, air, fire, hate and love, said 
that the sotil was eompoaed of these, since it knew all thinfrs, 
and that by earth It knew earth, fay water, water, and so forth. 
Thus, we hare a w ei v sa ent of thought, which first detendtMs ^le 
structure of reality bthA then, on ths basis of ths simile « 
slwlli princlnle, transfers that structure to tbs soul. In 

the ease of the materialists, this results, of course. In a 
naturalisation and Mtterialisatlcn of the soul. Now, all of 
this, which corresponds to Aristotle's dtovelopaent in the De 

Anjaa , Saint Thesas ineorpofrates, succinctly, in Ms own expo- 

sltlon in ths Swsna Theeloflae. 

,hAsn 1/ 4ta '*5 SB rts (fS0o<iii^ 

,.__ iq[ «l* bv^lign 8^iM)£MKnC yciisiw^c 

•Ksn£...-aora u-xooa sa« at' - ' ' '^ «llt M iMttjt #«cMi MWlt 

tf* matt .sKfltflcr •Xiffitraii'^ s? JIav 



Whsn, hcmttrcr, «e more on and study tba application to 
Plato, «8 find a curious and significant difference between 

the De AadUsa aad the SuMaa . In tbe De Aniwa the nrinelple is 

«aH9lified according to the theories of the Tigaeus . In 

the Tissaeus Plato Identifies the reals of the Ideas as the 

i" since it is inoeblle and unchanginj? and calls that of 
sensible reality the "Diverse** because of its chani^ng citarac* 
ter. The soul knovs both raaLss and, therefore , b^ the saae 
aoveiaent of thought as the siateriallsts eaployed, it inust be 
said to be ooi^ased of tbe ''Saae" and tbe "Di'verse." 

In this account the manramant of thought is faresented as 
identical in the flttterialistc and in Plato, though they differ 
in this that Plato extended the reach of being to in»at«rial 
realities* distii^ulshed between Intellect and sense, and se« 
lected other eleasnts to constitute reality. The direction of 
tte erg«B»nt is the saise, for in both eases it soves froa the 
structure of reality to the structure of the soul, and iiKieed 
to the structure of the substance of t^e soul. 

Hoe in the 5u— a 5aint Thoaas i|>inores tbe theories of 
the 'li—eus and of the ** ideal" nuaabers. Indeed, Saint Thomas 
has no text in tAAch a fundaoMxtal eriticisn of Platoolsa is de> 
Tsloped in function of these tlteories and, in fact, he rarely 
refers to therr outaide of the Aristotelian cementaries . This 
Mj be takMi as an indieatlon that be did not cwisider these 
Platonic doctrines of fundasMntal iaportance for the understand- 
ing or refutation of Platonisn. 

«-' ' -^^ T«e wBfmn rfted uisnig ij»« jif"* — t 

" ' Jaww B Utf Ml# *-!■ ~*d* si 

•Ml fmfc «•«[*<''> £ttt#aii aiNMi^«(f t>«».^» .. ^ii^Bife tSo^l-XiHtfi 

}1 ^e a5l,ta|s/-i8i :|9 9^1 


In apnlylnft the principle to FlatOy he rather attaeliBa 

It to the analyeia in tlie lietajphyBlea (irtiere Aristotle tmkmm 

m» oMntlcm of the alalll- alwlle axlon) and this by a sin^> 

lar revK'sal. For he dlatinguishea tlia aatttrlaliata rron Plato 

in the use of this principle, not prlBiarllx becatee n.ato added 

iMMitarlal beings and an intellect in aan distinct froa sease 

hot prltnarlly In that Plato reversed the ■ o r— e n t of tAtought . 

The Iteturallsts said that tte objects of knowledge ««re all 

e<»pareal and rsaterial and, titearefore, mxat exist materially in 

the soul. B!y an exactly oj^MSlte Boveiiient of thought Plato 

said Uiat the sool knows in an lanaterial fashion and that, con- 
sequently, the bbjeets knoen, the foras of material things, rmat 
subsist Insaterlally. The Naturalists transfer the structure of 
reality, which ttiey have determined as BOiterial, to the soul; 

Plato transfers the structure of knowledge, which to has seen to 

be isBaterial, to reality. This obviously conscious nanipala- 

tion and reallgnoient is sit^if leant, for It stresses the impar- 

tance, in Saint Thonas' own thouu^ht, of the direction of the 

Platonic arfunent as well as the predominating influence of the 

analyses of the Metaphysics . 

The aoviaf direction of Platonic argomant Is then elenr. 

The principle of elMllitude is to be applied to the facts of 

knowledge and In accordance vlth then the nature of tiie entities 

which are the objects of knowledge are to be detemined. 

9^ !» a^' 


<«« JU • 

f x 


5nBU'ic!7:7» Irf fins •''*■ *"■ 
«1# a«s t 

'^ # 


A« was pointed out earlior, the idaa of a stBllituoa or 
an aBSinllatlon between the knower and tbe object known plays 
an liQ>ortant part in daint ThoHUi' oen tinory of knoalttdga^ and 
literally dosena of texts can be quoted on thia point. Tt ia 
obTloaSf than, that the Platonic miatake cooeema tfae location 
and nature of tha siidlitude required and tliat thia, therofora, 
wait be daierained and defined with caref^ preciaion. 

):km, afiainst the ancient phileaqpkara* uae of the 
aiaile-aiaili ^nciple 6aint Tbanas aakea ta» i^^ortmt points: 

1. Saint Thenaa rapaata /^riatotle'a oritician that tha 
ancient philosophers, in aprilyinp tho principle, failed 
to cjiatinnfuiah between act and potency, to Saint Tbasas 
it aeaas quite clear that hiaaaa knowing in^sl-vna a paa> 
aagv froB potency to aetualitgr and that, if a aiallitude 
is necoaaary, it urust, flrat of all, be potentially in 
tha aottl. The ancients, iiovever, ooneaived tba sialli- 
t»de as a pHor condition of knowledge and, theerefore, 
asserted its po'ior actual exiatenee in the knowar.^^ 

2. In the seecud place, the ancient philosophers bslisved 
that the ainilitude required for knowledfte and truth 
had to bs raallasd in ths mamm natvrae. To know earth, 
the soul had to be, in a f^iysical as well as actual way, 
"aartl^." They thus, in fact, failed to distinguish the 
esse naturalo of the thing knovn froa the sort of esse 
iridch it had in the egre, in the iaagiaation, and in tKe 
intellect, 17 Thereby tfcoy re-vealed a Misunderstanding 

of tha nature of knowledge itself, which, as tranacending, 
8G to speak, the physical ligaita of the knower, 1" re- 
quires a new level of being, an ease for the object that 
is intentional, imnatarial and intelligible. 19 They, in 
fact, left out of the analyais of kaosledfics precisely 
that which is peculiar and distinctive, and this to auch 
aa extent that Saint Ttwaas aaes no reason, in their the- 
ory, for denyinp "kr.owinp" to those things which exist 
with only a material and natural deteraination* " St 
aniaa i?ne rot^oeeit ignea , et ignia etlaa qui eat extra 
aniaaa , i^ea eognoscagat . * ^^ 

bam , >sa'C? «i«i.'H 

«i ^ sd ma tuixmi 3o KiMe& ^i . . 

alno^isi:? art* J«d* ,««C# 

-C iqs 0-? OB 

,..- I 




The posltl'V© r«sult of thle discussion Is, therBfor*, 
tttMt kiKwlodge requlr«« WMetMni? other than natm>al qww and 
Immateriality. It la a n aea Ma ry eondition for knflwladfv «t 

ally that tha knowwr he capable of asalmilRtlnt^ the object lm-> 

■aterlally. Tf, then, the ainllitwle principle la to be re- 

in tha explanation of knoeledpe, the corresoondepce re- 
qulrad anist be shifted fron a correspondence in nature and 
natural characteristics to that peculiar kind of correspondence 
which is proper to and disccfvei^ble in knowledge. This con- 
trast Saint Thomas frequently express^ in the brief foraula- 

tion of an Aristotelian exai^let "For it la not stone but the 

speeiwi of stmte that is in the soul." 

Nov here oreclsely Plato erred. Be found indeed that 

the Intellect understood ljnat«rl:illy^ and In this he read the 

evidence better than the Naturallstit.'^Kit on the siieilltcRle 

orlneiple he deaanded a correspondence in Inmaterlallty, and 

hence posited limaterlality as a natural and entltative deter- 

■1 nation of any object of knowledge. Whereas > therefore. 

Saint Thtr-AS could use the inmateriality of knowing as the 

basis of an arfsnent for the Imateriallty of the knoeer, 

Plato used It to establish the iSBsterlality of the knoim. 

WiMreas for Saint Thonas the ont ©logical ground for the iswa- 

teriality of the act of knosintT lies in the nature of the knoe- 

er [ *godus enl» acti<»>is est secundum nodow faraae agentis" J , 

f«r Plato It lies in the nature of both the knower and the 


.. K w.-. _- _ .. 1. dk fc.- 

-#l W o# »/ >, net* ,rew** »« "^'.xLUJr 

*<Sfie (tf •C'tiatr^vioQ^'.Jhf) fans oJ* tafftipq 9tt dmhtm 

«* IW lo fl0l# 

i 111 •! #«u(^ sno^* '^o «vf%<Kitt 

•'f .tn '■•)?. r?fi*{ __/ 

nL %i:s ia \rtiMtte4 












Thus Saint Thomas malntnlna a continuity with tbe an- 
cient philoaoplwrs in using the alnilitiuie idoa as explanatorx 
of knowledge , but pointa out carefully the crucial differaneaa 
the idea displays in the tlteoriee of the naturalists, of Plato 
and of Aristotle respectively. To define the diffeirenees BK>re 
in detail, we arast turn noir to the other fonulations of the 
Platonic principles. 

Section 2 


The Operational "Modus" Prlnclalf? 
The establishaent of the difference betneen XSam eaae 
naturae and the esse IntelllgiMle natiurally introtiuces the 
consideration of the variaus nodus-fornulae in which Saint 
ThoBias crystalllsoa his eriticisB of the Platonic cof^tional 
siadlltude. This critieisii is fomilated along two different 
but eenverginf; lines of consideration. 8a nay consider knofii- 
ing as an operation and in this case the distinction will fall 
between the modus e^Latendi rei cognitae and the aodxis intelli * 
gendi re« ipsaa . Knowing otay also be viewed as a reception , 
involving the existence of intelligiblo forms In the intellect 
as in a receptive subject. The difference will then fall be- 

the aodus existendi in re and the aodus recipiendi or ex- 

is tendi in intellectu. 

Saint Thoaas uses fomulae of both Igrpos to express the 
sharp fundanental op^ooeitlon between his mm view and that of 

---te ?du - ,-„..„. . :-' Jatlafi awfT 


tbcr^ 'M ijry^ 





XCftV ^.v^..» 



I mi t 

325 :filffft 


Plato and tim Platord«t4i« In thia asetian «• ahall limLt our 

diacusaloo to tbe opuratlonal foraula aad for tltla pnrpoaa Uta 

oontraat a^y be preeiaaly iadieated tagr the follovlng atata- 


Saiat Tboaaai Kan necaaaarliss est quod raodua exiatandl 

rei cofcnitae ait Idea ac aodus IntelligeBdi 

Plate* Hkxtea rai intallectaa in aue luum eat aieut 
EBodua 1 ntellipemli rem Ipeaa.^ 

FoTBulae of thla type and the aodus tonnlnology do not 
aaat to be used in tha aorks of Ariatotle^ Avarroes or Avicenna. 
The bepinninga of the foraula appear In tha Baethiaa dlaoaaaion 
of the fawNia laconic remark of PorphTry which occaaioned tha 
medieval debate on univeraala* Boethiua there placea an objec» 
tion ahieh ie repeated by \belard and uaed aa a stereotyped ob- 
jection by ^aint TboEiaa: 

Quadai aoc re quidara generis ceteroriBKiua 8aBdtvu:> iatal- 
leetua neque ita ut »me9 rea habet quae intalleetui aub- 
jaata aat^ vanua aeeeaaa eat trn* Intallaetia qai ex ra 

quidoi amitur, naa tanen ita ut sese res habet} id eat 
•aim falmni gxiod aliter atque res eat intelligitvir .^ 

Boethiua distinguiaheaa in bia aolutioci^ tha way a thing 

axiata froa tha way it ia underatood and declarea that, when 

thia diatinction raaulta froa a legitisate aaparation, tha uader- 

ataMllBg ia not« tharafare« falae. Ue auHDariaaa hia coocluaion 


Hia igitor tandaatia aania^ ut arbitror, quaaatie dia- 
aoluta eat, ipaa enira f^enera et species subeiatunt quidea 
alio BKxto , intelltguntur varo alio , et sunt i neorporalia, 
aed aenaibiia iuneta aviwiatttnt in aenaibilibxia , iatellirTun* 
tur vero ut per senet ipaa subalatentia....^* 


9^ iitiy 

oat %jr»alwn<| sd x;5« t^- > 

ion <}t> 

.1 o::a JI.^ Of ■fr;?..Lr-.t-»* ^ 

^' ,'. ',V^ 


^ F" 


-i .-.J 


s^ #1 !■» «l» soul &f«lm 



**• • > aAX J^»W«i Wt'Oa 

w -or* 


2a JUbelard th» tctwol»i6 reach a daflnltlTa far» in which 
tbmy arm vflorbally identical with some of those la Saint Thoaaa. 
Abalard states th« sane objeetlon: 

B sl us ae dl autwi Intelleettia per abstract! onan inde for- 

sitan falsi vel vanl videbantur quod ren aliter quaa sub- 
sletit , p«i^lplant.5 

His solution turns on each forsuXae as these « 

... alius modus est intelligendl quam subsistendl...,^ 

... aliuo noduB habaant In concipiendo quaa res in •xia'- 


This distinction is repeated by Jcim of Salisbury: 

Hoc verendua ut rassus sit Intsllectus qui ea percepe- 
> rit amcrmvm a aiSKUl^LribuSy com taaea a slnfolarlbus seer* 
sua esse non posslnt.^ 

£t quiden rebus existendl urn^ ost nodus, quoo scilicet 
natura eontulit, sed easden inteUigendi aut sip^fieaadl 
non luius est modus.^ 

Saint Thomas Is, therefore, using fcuratilae and dlstlnc- 

tlons which emerged in the debate on universals} his exptressions 

are part of the heritage bequeathed to the thirteenth century by 
Boethlua and Abelard. In Boethlus and Abelard the fonmilae 
rest upon a sort of phencsasnologlcal reflection on abstz^action 
and intellectual distinction. In Saint Thoi^tas, however, while, 
as we shall see, this basis is still used, the fornulae are in- 
tegrated with the netapbysics of operation. The " intelligere 
rea ipeaa " is the very operation of the intellect and, since 
operations are in accordance with the nature of the operatini; 
agent, the characteristics of the operation, its modus , will be 


.... .. - , .. iifi 

^.at' ' sanii n&.v 

ii4>r « t, 9oqu iwan 

-ftt 1 mr SB 


dstominsd l^ the very being of ths agant* The fiwrtw—wtal In- 
tegration of Uie order of action and being — a^ere eequAiur 
esse — thoa underlies thia nodal dlstlnetion. For if the 
■ode of the knowing operation la determined on the aide of tte 
auhject, it will not be necesaary to denand in the object a 
correspondence to that node anei indeod, if the nature of the 
thlnR known is different froa that of the knower, it will necea-> 
sariljT follow " cjaod aliud ai t aodua intelllgendi quo intelleetuc 
intelUgit ,"^ - 

This fomiula do«38 not appear in anj early critique of 
Plato; it is absent frots the texts in ttie comaentarles on the 
Sentences , and the T^ Trinltate j and in Urn Ccmtra Gentiles and 

^^ ^ ?«^itate . It la, howrvvr, a central part of the discus- 


sicHi in the eighlgr-foarth question of the 5tMaa Tl 

But the nodus distinetione as ivell as the objection to which 

thegr are historically attached occur in connection with various 

prdblens of knowledge and tiiroiighout the works. tfe have here, 

therefore, a fonmlatian that f^xpresses a view of knowing held 
quite indepsndently of any critique of Plato and which is not a 
ad hoc debatiiH! device. It is* noreowsr, continuous with 
■etaphysies of beiBR and operation and servos neatly to ex- 
press a phase of the theory of slRllitude. It is not surprising 
then tiiat in the eighty-foiirth question of the auaaa Thsologiae , 
the f omula is subsuned under the rubric of ainllitade and iised 
precisely to pin-point a difference in internretatit»>. 

mu -Ks » --^" i taif 


In tb»0« two foTBulaSf in which Saint Thosas confronts 
so sharply hi a own view with tJuit of Plato, two diverse theories 
of knowledge are brought to confrontatic»i. Saint Thonas demands 
BO adequation of knowledge and thing in those eharacterletios of 
knoHlJ^ s^ich flow frow the nature of the operating subject, 
Flato makes no such exception; these characteristics aust he 
•ntoloRlcal characteristics of the object itself in sue 9»B9 and 
this as a condition of being knowable at all. L'nder this prin* 
ciple, therefore f all operatl onal characteristics of knowlBf 
■BSt be transferred to the nature of the object. 

Seetimi 3 
Yhe fisetptlCTa P rinciple 
9b eatt also view knowledge as, in a sense, passive, as 
eonsistin« in the reception of fonts ox* spectra and rsquiring 
the existence of species in the intellect. Tho principle which 
Saint Thoaas hsre eoploys has mmj verbal foras, but tso Bain 
fersBilae nay be distinguished, a generalised one which extwMis 
far beyond ths area of coKnitiont " Qsne quod recipitxur in ali - 
quo, reclpitur in eo 2er nodwi recipientis " ior " Quldquid est 
in ali qup , est in eo ^er aodua eius in ^[tto Mt" j and one which 
(Qiplies ejqsressly to cognition: "Cognitias autest est in cogno- 
scente socundan jspdun cognoscentis ." Saint Thocsas hiinself 
points out the relationship between these tm principles s 

.».. non tanen oportet quod sodo illo sit species ilia in 
intellectu quo in re intellects: nam onne quod eat in ali- 
quo est per aodua ejus in quo cst,^ ' 

,. i- la &i3*^i« od* •eiirti *5ui.i «*9tr' " ' 


IXfi al iM boor 9P "^ *" "^ «^P 

(i4ttd» *co f 



ll«»r • ' - ' 


'- ■ ». 


Thus tty» coKnltiooal fora is really aa application of iitB p^eneral 
■•ti^^iTBlcal principla to the relationship of species to intel- 

1 lov for the generalised form Saint Thonas hiBorelf refers 

frequently to the Liber De Catsis'^ and once, at least, to Dioiqr- 

sins. The Idber 2* Causis , indeed, contains the principle in 

both forsss, though Saint Tho;?as expressly refers to Soothius 

far the cognitional principle.^ Tbs principles also appear in 

other v^rlters likewise id-th references to the Llbw De Cauais 

9 10 

and Boetlilus, Hone of these foraulations appear in Aristotle 

and there can be little ckmbt that they are derlTed froa the 

sources indicated by Saint Thonas hiaself. « 

t Saint fhonas uses the principles in a wide ifariety of 

contorts, axain quite independently of his Platooie crltiqua, 

as principles of insight and uxKierstandin^. It is thus applied, 

for exasple, to the relation betveeri ai^Mit and patient, ai^rent 

1? 13 

axid mediua, motion and the thins noved, perfectimi and the 

perfectible, fora and aatter and aeoidftnt or foone and si^- 
Ject. ^ « 

This sanpliBff of usa^e shows that the rseeption princi- 
ples do not express a single tiieory or doctrine but rather are 

flexible analo(7ou8 forsulae widely used to express relatl(»- 

ships of causality and netaphyBieal structure. This Is fur- 

ther cooflraed and the flexibility of Saint Thaaaa' tamiaolear 
is further illustrated by the frequent expression of the saae 


ifufUn ir-.»-v' ..,«„^T *«^Aa «n»!t teslXswMH orfj '^'^ ^''^ 

«»J«»ep^ '■-♦ <--vJ?-«'-.»r-,w^,-]j3g^ ttaiii»<-fy 4lKI»S i^eo^ \ttB«&l Alwif 
OX <J 

•1j 'iff iatjRo ^ bo^fts^tJni •syti.we 

)9 x^mt*^ «' ' «t!f£9(i^ ari^ a^H-' f ."•oil? tei*3 

,e aid te V tft*?»ilw» 


principles in other tenm vlthln tho mam9 or Biiailar eontexta. 
Wkon, therefore, i^alnt ThoMu applies the rec^tion i.TinciplBa 
to k n e wi si e s, it Is b se—s of an Mwl i nwm maMaauiUp batveen 
the poasible intellect and the species or intalli^ble fom. 

For kBoirledge, na have aald, oan be vlewadi as imraOLving 
the receptl(m of a form which, pr— aut in the Intellect, deter- 
ainae It to knowledrce. This Is the intelligibla species which 
is a slisilitude of the <^ject and through which the intellect 
knows* lion the species is a fom or act of the intellect to 
which it is therefore related as act to potency, Intellaetma 
in aetu est Intellectue in aetu i a siniUe principle of knoaing 
results froQ the union. As in all unions of act and potmnejf 
the act determines, but the potency In turn lisiits and condi- 
tloTffl the act. Whatersr pertains to tho oaterlal or potential 
side of a subject, its nature as datamlBable, its dispositions 
and preparation, will condition tha roeaption of the act. Hwaee, 
iriim two potential subjects are different qua potential sabjecta, 

a coarofMi fom will necessarily be racaiwvd and sxlst in thaa 

according to different Mmners. Saint Thotsaa illustrates this 

by a ta mlba T of siaple nanudwitory exaaples. A aan and a statue 

■ay have a similar shape, though the figure has a different node 

of esse in gold than it has in flesh and bones. irhite is more 

intense in one subject than in aaother} it exists with sweetneas 

in one subject and without it ia another. light will bs aodl- 

fled by differently edlorod glasses. A pertintnit instance and 



Mi* etti'"-^ 'Uti t9tbk> sa eaJEtti«B*W| 

Ca of «A ttsatms 9*i$ t>e)^ 


«te«gt « Muf 

-ilib c* jpiiinMiMft 

■a ^o n«d!sai s ^tf 


« better exaaole, philosophically, lies in the di ff erent MiM 
of reception of form In sense and in the Intellect. For siiiee 
sense is a power In s corporeal organ. It thersfore rs c e it f s 
ths sinilitade of the known object in a corporeal and aaterlal 
wajm Intellect, howerer, actuates no organ and is Iswiterial. 

Consequently, it reeeiires the species ineorooreally and ijR>ate«> 

Saint Tboaas thus points out that the 8peelea« in vir- 

ttie of its reception in the intellect, aust be intelligible, 

y$ ?C ?7 ?8 

laaaterlal and incorroreal, abstract, nniirersal, stable, 

and characterised by a sort of necessity. These ore ■odalio 

ties whldi again are derivative fron the subject and need not 
be found in the thing known. Froa the standpoint, therefore , 
of reception, ve arrive at a linltation of the slndlitDde prin- 
ciple, a liBitation which Plato, in fact, did not accept. For, 
ia nato*s view, all these nodalities oust likewise be seen as 
entitative conditions of the object of knowled^. In terns of 
Uteee foraulae Saint Thonae is able, then, to ta*in? to sharp 
focus the conflict betveen hlaself and Flato, 

Sajnt Thonast Hon oportet q«ad mxto illo sit species ilia 

in Intellectu quo in re intellecta, naa oe* 
ne quod est in aliqiio, est per nodui ejus 

in quo est, 30 

Plato: Ponn eoKBltl «x necessitate est in cogno- 
scente eo aodo quo est in cofnito.^^ 

Howe i ru r, althoufrh the sharp point of difference is thus 

feevsed, behind Saint Thcnas' principle lies his general theories 


1# ol tea a«ri»« ni isf^^l ?o r«}l;N?«>99^ 'te 




^t>a tfmn Hm. it 

iUf juo minhtq wAJ mmocTT isJb»& 

-.^'J a«(W n* It, 

.ci.fK.r? hoc 

'%)rfT J«l»2 

«js» oirp ttl 



at eft ari;* it]^«il7le tievomc^i 



of act and potenej, belnf, aetlon and eaoeallty. The »ld* use 
of theso prinriples throutrhout his works ostabllshas a broad 
doetrinal conststwmy and Indicates that tlis ^ineiplas, in 
spit* of thoir sources, wtst r9e«i-vo their docteinal detvraina- 
tion froB bis basic and gonmral prlneiplss. 

Again, these precise f oraulati ons do not ^j^ar in the 
earlier crltlt^nes, though thsy sre central in S.T. i52j and In 
u im, lloir*ov»r« it should be noted that, because of tte 
p«euliar nature of Intelleotion, the operational and the reoep- 
tioB principles mat be brought together (as Saint Thoaias }iiB- 
self does) in a aost Intiaate relationship. For aqy operati(» 
is in aceonlanee with the font by wlilch the agent acts. Tn in- 
tellsetioD, the species Is the fora which enables the intellect 
to know, and, consequently, Mkes innaterial and universal knosl- 

wtg* possible. In turn, however, the Inttili^ble foro is iana- 

terial because it is reeeiwed in the ]>0BsiMe Intellect, 

SecticMi U 

Thh Tt^gwpoeition of Abstracttena into Reality 

^' There is a series of texts in which Plato's basic larin- 

eiple is fontrulated thost 

Ka qaae po^iat s epara r i seeundvs intelleetoD ponebant 
etiaa secundum esse separata.^ 

In soeae of tho texts the principle is sii^ly laid down as the 


Platonic startinjT point and positicns are shown to flow flron it. 

In two texts, it Is, however ^ interrelated with other principles 


^/ f^ih tt rkti? vi t Tl 

«l» ml 

mM Jo 

# ? 88f^ 

Ti? Bill .*inc^ati-tAf 9<aX(^JH*JJn« s) 

^i t-t SI] .fijfli 

' S si (tMMfr !t£K 

o-.* 3no"X (Mi# wl L, - - , : ^i 

i^oArtf <• ■ a*^<&'^-. -. 

.-J awn- 

up I!): 

aeXqjtwirT'q tsoj-o nTttr 

•rsft<ta* ^ivrgwofl f»t tt ,»d'XM^ 



tfti, iBd«ed, derlwd tram ttoWB, wWLle in other text* it 1» 
yUMd at the end of a poeitiv* asq^oait^on of a theory of ab- 
straction or "separation" and is said to depend apoo a ■iscon- 

ception of the aodes of abctraction. 

It is Interesting to note that discueatoos of this lat- 
ter sort are often associated with the classic objection already 
referred to as traditional in the dispute over univeraalai 
"tanis intellectus intelligens re» aliter gaaa fit* est fal- 
suB,"^ Into this backgrwand and discussion, the often quoted 

dictua of Aristotle, " AbstralMintiua ngp est ""ifTliliini" ^ ^^' 

qusDtly inserted. 

In answering the objection in the eigltty -fifth question 
of «» Susgaa Theologiae , Saint Ihonas distinguishes two kiada of 
M^aration which depend, respectively, upon two different opera- 
tions of the intellect. If wa use an apple, for exanpla, it is 
clearly one thing to s^ that the red color is not in the apple, 
quite another oerely to consider the color without thinking of 
tto rwt of the apple.' In the first case we oaka an assertion 
about the apple and the question of the accuracy of the asser- 
tion IwilttBfcilj arises. If the color is, as a aatter of fact, 
in tho apple, then our assertion is false and the "separation" 
ia illogitiMite. In the oecood caso, however, we sake no asaar- 
tipxs we do not intend to apiOy tbe separation to the actual 
aituationi we are separating only in " eoneideraUo «" A siriple 
sort of reflection thus rewals that xe have two different 


fTffna two 9c.. j«^ 4|ii ij»im>titttA^ t» O'i bwi^JU/i 


nDl:<? 3ft aX 
To wbatii omt ««■• ' !• 

,6. ^.' joe o<!f vniiii MKi 


sltuatlocM, In only on* of wMeh can the problem of falsity or 
truth arise, bince truth is an adequation of intellact and 
thing, obrlonsly this adequation snist bo Torified «ith regard 

to the "senaration** itself only in the first case, not in ths 

second. Thus the lof^tioacy of separation is related to the 

■iailltiKto required for truth. And la this rofleetl<» the cri- 
terion used to detemine the noint at which slnilltude is nee^> 

sary is: Shatewr we mean to assert or understand to be asserted 

of reality oust be Terified in reality. It is only in the 

first kind of seperatlon — toat of the intelleet<^iTidi^-ii«ad> 
combining -» that the assertion is nade and understood to be 
■ade. Ham this serutration is effected, ^lerefore, only la tli* 
seecKx) act of the Bind, that act in which and by i«hich the esse 
of a real db^ct is attained and asserted. It is because a 
unity or separation la esse is asserted that this act is open 
to conparison with the actual situation of things and subject 
to adjudication according to the esse rei. Obriously, Plato's 
prinelnle will apply to all truthful statasents of separatifNi 
of this sort. 

In the first <^>eratian of ttae InteXleetji hcmv99rg tips 
situation is quite different for her* «• are dealii^ with Intel- 
leetual consideration of " rati ones .* There is no intended refer- 
ence to reality} consequently, the real thintt cannot serve as a 
nora of leffltinaey or lllepitiiMey bare* We are dealing only 
with ratioaes and our eritorion, therefore, mist be such as 

jsrm £ur. »1 ri^0«r »9ui^e *neHM (i^^tfiEt 

Mis IV, auJ!« jstuvj >«o'ix.'. «ii>j lix ^^'i«> x£9Sw« nWNCJn 'f B^(?9 (Miw (Mr 

.MfMft .• ^mM^HhiHi iblit»> -» ^al»<r «I» m itn » H t •# tow fi»tvi# 

Mf <K^ boo#«i«ata» boa ooti'^MiBii crt^ it4:^ — V-' 

ttft «l 

od ai Ir bftA tNtftcs^tte »i i99t<fc> Xiun s Ke 

«t-»a aiifir 1» 
9rrtm ^onastr ^-j {\j7Zls«*i o-7 sons 



d«t«niliMM th« poBsibility of dtvlelon within rati onss Intgllec - 
tttaJJIy congl dared . We can separate ratlonea and understand thea 
•^M«tely irtianevor the vexy uademianding of one does not ln« 
elude the undorstandii^ of the other. If, then, the InteHlpl- 
bllitiea of one ratio are not the intelllgibilitlos of the other, 

ifflth reference to this analysis Saint Thooas plaeea the 
Platonic error in a failure to diatinguish these two qnite dif- 
ferent types of separation. Bjr treating; thaa am Itentieal, he, 
la fact, assimilates the second to the first and brings to bear 
up<m it the requisites of truto which are relatlTo only to the 
first, whereas Saint Thomas allows t^t an asserted separation 
aust be verified in reality, Plato aust hold that all intellec- 
tual separations sust be verified in reality and, consequently, 
the principle! Ea quae possnnt separarl secirHltaa intelleetua 
sunt etiaa setnmdua esse separata . 

Row, the Kode of separation in the first act of the sind 
is a »ode of intellectual distlnctloni. It is fj^jm this staixi- 
polnt tjiat the error is sofnetimos formlated thus, Supponit entw 

quod quaecuaque dlatinguitur secuadun JatBllectua , sint etlaa 5n 

rebus distlnets . 

Thus, the Platonic error leadto to the wholesale trans- 
position of abstractions and distinctions flran the intellect in- 

to reality. The detailed detendnatlon of the results tteis 

upon what wxles of abstractions and what patterns of 

-A ! ^AXr >^I.^« « 1^ 

o to aetlUltf 

)»li» iiinot|gg8 ^m$di i^irTr^nc': ic^^ianoft «1 it>T«B c^ l«4r 4»J)i)q 



distinctioiMi ths PXatonlst discovers in knawXedge and thought. 
TlM tvo 00— on levels of abetractjonj that of the universal 
froR the aingvlar and of aathMMitica froa sensible beings^ are 
ordinarily iMtaaced hgr Saint Thooaa. Tho traaBpositi(» of 
iheee two into reality results in the positing of t«ro levels 

of realities beyond Vam senaibilla , the Ideas tiaeaselvefl at the 

top and tm natomiatica between then aad auitK>ial roalitgr* 

Here again we have a set of prinniples vitieh f onaula^e 

the basie error of -Uato in function of a set of basic doctrines 

quite independently developed and which enable Saint Th<akaa to 

set up a sharp ccmfrcntatieo betaeen his am view and that of 


Section 5 
The aase in Intellectu 
Aceording to Saint Thoaas* tae riatonists aulntained the 
subslstease ef ideas not only as natures but precisely qpa ani« 
versal. l^ros this standpoint tiiey aay be said to have trans- 

f erred to reality and endosed i^tb ontological status those in - 

I fpMHlcpes utiich follov iipon the siotiuc intelligendi or pertain 

to the e— a in intellectu and» therefcare, can actually be 

discovered only in the intellect. 

The earnest for«al discussion of the tffjltHPfll Plljl'l* 

g e n eris et dl f f erentiae is devcloT'ed in the re ^'^ate et Essentia . 

Saint ThosHUj in dependence upon Avicenuaf distinguishes teo 

ijfcr* to 
^ j£ «tf /JR* q<fi 


•dl in. 

? aet»«>«. 

•Jou fig; ^i^Muton^ 

ed ^£lB0.f9ft ate « 

; < 'n-f.. i -^..f^ 

H#« slfU «Dn ^ •XftS'X«ir 

« hiiao^«. 

.«l i. 

nwf SMici 

••b et 

If vatutbmqoh at t<>^ 


differwat ways of eonslderlnt a natnr*. It n^ be considered 

mimply in itself » hf abstracting but not prescinding froca ee - 

Mf" in this case, only the eleaonts found in the definition 

■ay be attributed to it* It msj also be considered insofar as 

it exists and this either according to an existence, as iadlTldu- 

aied, outside the intellect, or, as abstract, within the sind. 

AeeordlnfT to these " esse's* certain "aceldonta" are found to be* 

long to the natare* Thus, aan is said to be whita b seao s a tte 

indlrldual »an, existing in reality, is #iite. Certain acci- 
dents likewise follow unon the esse in intellectu . Since this 
is an abstract esaoj free fron all individuating factors, the 
nature so existing is related alike to all individoals, and, in 

pereei'vinf; this relaticnshlo, the intellect discovers the ratio 

apeclei and attributes it to %im nature. Thus the intentiones 

universalitatis , i.e., nredlcablli tatis , generis j sped el et dif- 

ferentlae pertain to a natuure accord! n«r to the esse which it has 

in the intellect. They canm>t, thoerefcre, be predicated of any 

IndiTidual, existing outside the Intellect, nor are they part of 

ths definition of the nature Included in its absolute considera- 


There Is one reference to the Platonlci in the De £nte 

mt Ksswitla . Saint Thoaas points out that the ratio gmeris 

cannot be attributed to the nature as a thing existing outside 

of singulars. This would naks it iapoeslble to nredieate the 

natiire of indlTldtuLLs, since we could not say that an indlrldual 

*. .9 ads xJuno (««ao aJHt^ ttl f«t 

•batm t rf adit ebtev^sm ri)«^« 


Mfif , * X£e aoVt 9«n\ t flggy ^9<iCtt«to fM «i 

al ,ini («<' «rl £Xs o^ wiiilii boi^fXat si yitiiLhaft on mrfaa 

Vw 'to fet>^»on>»aq stf ^9tei\9rmA* ^sntsmso TKfT .t»»ir»^2 orf^ at 

% tMm» Si^£! *^* ^"'^''^ ^''*' '^^"^^ HUadT' ^l»e «jBti>c»wg t* 


is a nature distinct frora it« nor SRSln could this sopsratsd 
natur* ssrvs as a ssaiis of knosiag the indi^ldusls. This is 
the extent of ^is "eritidsa" of KLatenlSB In tlw De Ente and 
it is properly an attack or: the poeitlo rather than a foToal 
SvAiction to principles* Hoeever, it is thus vade clear that 
the analysis of fsnns and speeiss given there is fuadanentally 
opposed to the theory of s^^istsab universale. 

IB. I ^S2*«» 2# 1» 3» T«o find, in a different context, a 
i^eferenee to the sane sort of analgia as that r-resented in the 
JiS. ^^^ S^ Ksaentla . In cbaling with the question, " quecedo 
dicatur aliqua ratio in aSLktpm. re esse vel aon — se ," Saint 
Theaos notes three possible rtiSMUctm bstween a conceptiai in. 
telleetna and a thiag outside the soul. The flM^eond of these 
eaMerns the iptentionee viiich f oUots on the laode of understand- 
ing and are diseovered by the intellect and attributed to the 
ratio , e*£«, of aninal. While no referoree is hers cade to Pla- 
toBijnif the p res e atsttion usee the eatpresslon * «odus intelll - ^^ 
a s mtt a " obliquely involves the standard abjection already dis- 
cussed ( intellectus est falsue giii intellipit nwi aliter <juaa 
sit) and SKtioda tim saqslMsitlcm to Bsathesatical abstraction. 

It is clear that Saint Thonas dmrlves the <wrldmtial 
grounlifork for his explanation fron reflection upon predication, 
definition and knoeledse. It is to the facta thus revealed 
that he a pp ea l s boiUi aKSlast the Flatonists and in support of 
his own analysis so that bis analysis is based upon these faets 




.a* •: 

i- -tJ.^.\ ►-.w . ■. . > 

©# flf' 

t^ «* »^ *•:' 


-bJ* k 
mun tmttU tun jt^!'^ 

Mm tfr. 9bhrt 

.atf tai* i,0' 


at itM BOBB tlHB flvrvBS as a thaor^tlcal axplanatlon of th«u 
li(» OV1 say that tho lataatlonea cannot be attributed to a 

nattura aa a thlis; axiatiiu; outside the Kind for then the nature 

could not be pradicatad of the individual ajod at the saMe tiia* 

that the rati a apeciel is not nredieated of the Individual ba - 

eaugo it doee not T><}i*tain to the gsac in re or to the absolute 

consideration of the nature. Likendsey it is clear that the 

analysis, at least inplieitly, presupposes and is Integrated 

with basic oAtapt^ieal positions , for axaaple, the unity in be- 

ing which underlies predication, t^o total individuation of 

20 21 

exlatinfr beim^s, the dlstineticxi between nature and esse* 

Finally, pMlosoT-^hical reflection roveals tho profound concord- 
ance of this analysis with the doctrine of the distinction be- 

tiieen the esse naturals and the ease iptelligiblle which wa hava 


alraac^ discovered to be fundazMntal. ^or the name in intel- 

lecta Is found to involve characteristic "accidents" precisely 

because it is an ease intelllKlbila ftaactionin^ in knowledge and 


subject to the i ia se d iate reflection of intelli^emoe itself. 

It la not surprising, therefore, that the nain points of 

this early analysis are carried over into the developing critique 

of ^atoniss. Integrating and corMnlng, in various wsQra, with 

the other foraiclatlons and approaches. Thus, in fimction of the 

contrast to Plato irtdLch runs through S.T,, I, 85, i« there find 

definite echoes of this analysis, for ezaaplet 

rieenduB quod universale seeundun qvod aeeipitur cua In- 
tentiooe universal! tatis, est quiden quodaaBodo prineipiun 


•— •- ^-^# i«»in •.■ — ^ '^i ♦«o*«« w«no «•>.'•■—' ^ — ^ 

09Sd a» dsJ^fw ( • adi toe r^bf flMW^ 

9dJ> lo ooi^om]! at ,«af7 .sattMtVbH- _ cttitiisa^l. taOtn aM 

ten rwK^* 9w ,^ •* «•; ^^ <j.f 4 - 


eo gW M Wndl, prout inteotlo unlvorsalitatis conecqultur 
aodu» intolllgendi ■-■.u.l •si ,X:: .V^ .C'J oncr.-w Son autea 
e«t B«e«as« <|«aii''oiBMi quod est prlnelpivi cognoseondij, 
sit prlnclpiua estMndi, ut Plato e^Lstimavlty cum quando- 
^pw MSMacnNMi examam per cf ftetust et subvtantlm par 
aooldentla. Unde urtfrersale sic arcfr^vun, secunchw sen- 
tentiaa Aristotells, non est prlneinlua essondi, nftqua 
sub6':.antla, ut pa tot ' n ' "' jSetaph.'- ' 

Thus, wQ find again an approach which is Integrated 

with Saint Thocaa* fundaaental positions in netaphorsica and 


tlwoK7 of knoidsd^a and is, there fore* no aere isolated attack 

on Plato, iforoorer, its basic points ars repeated and flexibly 

Incorporated idth the other forsBolations and even expressed in 

their language. 

Fran this standpoint, whan Plato asserts the existence 

of universals as such, wiiother species , rc«iu8 or differanliay 

he is aaking real entities of loi^ical intentlones whose very 

■atare is such that thay cannot exist except within Intellectual 

reflection and consfo ©ration. This is to apply the denand of 


siallltude not only to the content and nodalltles of rati ones 

as coneelTed but also to the entire lofdcal order; wtaatever is 

diseorerable in knowledge and in thought nust be paralleled in 

reality J every principle of knowledire saist bo a principle of be- 



ing and the pattern of the genera et species beecaes the out- 

line of the very hlorarchy of being Itself 



?. -._J 


^.■k^ Jk ^ t A.... 



•99 9^ oS tXnO ^MI 



Section 6 
The bynth— i» of Foraiilatl ona 
It Dill t:« of valu« to ro-viev the pattern of occurrence 
of the various formolations within the worics of :>aint ThooaB. 
I* half seen that each fuiwliitigp haa it« cmn diatinet hiatori- 
eal baeksround and (xcura first in a definito ecmtaxtaal back- 
grouni, quite iadapandently of the otber f«nBulatl ons. 

Tha abatraction-prineiple first occurs as tha basic er- 
ror in the j>B Vwrttate aad is sade to rest on a poeitiva expo> 


aition for the first tiae in the coccsentary on tha J^ Yrinitate . 

In neither of thmie paaaagas is it related to amr of tiie other 
foranlations* HoReYar^ in the ei^y-fifth question of tha 
Swa TbeologiafB, tha analysis of abs tract! oc is escpreasly re- 
lated to the aodas torminoloi^ and thus tied into tha priaary 
praaantatlcm of the aighty-fourth question, idiile^ in the eon- 
■entary on the Metaphysics » the two analyses are Interwovra 
with the abstraction formilation depending uvcn the podaa prin- 
ciple. The nodus -princ iplas thnaselTos, while widely used by 

Saint Thoaas, are first brought to bear on Plato's positions in 

5 6 

the Siaaaa TheoloRlaa and In the eoMMBtary on tho Uetaptiyslcs . 

The aeae in Islfillifitii approach, which la briefly ralatad to 

IlatoaiMi in tha Tm Sate at Kaaantia . la likewise repeated in 

later tezta and associated aore elosaly with the other princi- 


Through these interrelatiODships the entire set of anal- 
yse aad principles is draan tofratlier into aa InterloeklBg, yet 

-ttai- flMKiic mwi aff 

-Ola. iKf 1*9 


i at 


I, aystem and, ind*od. Is subsuaBd ondsr th« slallltud* 

Itea la tiM Mntaral synthotlc t«xt of the first article of the 


eighty -foorth nueation of the 3a— a Theologiae « 

Before leaving the theme of progreeeive imlflcationy 

attsntloB elMnld be called to two early critiques, the prinei* 

pise of irhieh, thou^ clearly rslated to the siature crltiqus, 

are not repeated and cOTstitute unique analyses. 

The one critical text in the eonnsntary on ths Sentences 

states the fund s as n ti u i thust 

QuaseiaM^e inveniuntur con-venire in aliqua intentions 
intellecta, volueirunt quod cosasHiniearsnt in una ro,9 

This fonmlation is imiqije and does not reeto' in Saint Thonas* 

Bossver, it is clear that the same basic error is being pointed 

out, for the fca'^nula and the accoaipaQying sxaiBples Indicate that 

it is the transposition of intelligible unity, of an intentio 

and, indeed, of coisnon predicates to (Mitolof?ical status that the 

principle svasaarises and Justifies. 

The critique given in l2 B» 2£ Z£ill*' ^» ^» £•» ^Sino 

with the historical backgrovoKl of the pre-Flatonic aoneat, bat 

it fraaes the basic error thus: 

S«d hie defectus aecidit ex eo quod non distinxit jsc. 
Plato j quod est per so db eo qvod est per accidens.^ 

This formulation is used be e an o s the analysis of the article 

■ODSS tla*eafth the discussion of the status of fona in becooliic 

and in kneetledee as given in ths ssvsnth book of the Bslaphgralcs . 

TMs analysis nowhers r««|>poara as a basis critique of Platonlsm. 

nin#i£tala art» 




•iS U 


j;"» . 

>ia''yiy. ■ -s- 






'9^ ,tt£dlatall 


aft} ^«U 



■ti .K:} «* .H 

lift 1^ :iJoeKf I n/ n«v^ wi VP.bmLtKMi ol 


.anrcBftiftJi^ 1» tt<i|»t#H» tlttMl « sa v^ 

ofl aJ^«xJJ^ 


>, OTBn so, the analysis oama finally to a etatenent iriilch 

rvXatoa the critique to the other rornulatlooet 

FosaoBt ergo fauluaaodl ratioiMS sie abetraotae conalde- 
rari dnplicltert uno aodo aecondua ae, et sic conaiderantur 
sine Motu et aataria aignata* ct boo nan invenitur in oia 
niai aecundttn eaao quod habent in intellectu; alio aodo se> 
. . tMmtm qood e<nparantttr ad res, d^arua sunt rationaa^ <iaaa 
quidea res svint in nateria et motu, et sic Lsuntj principia 
eoKBQseendl lllSf quia omnia re« e«03oa«it«r per auaa for- 
Buoi} et ita per huiuaaodl rationes inaoblles et sine aateria 
partievlarl ecmsideratas h^betur e<ienitlo in scientia natu> 
rail da rebus aobllibus et naterialibiis extra aniisan exis- 

It is noteworthy that. If «• cotapare thia article with tbe ^.T,, 

I, 6Uy 1, e«» the two articles <re 8««i to correspoad in aub> 

■twtee in the opmiiiff h(tBtM» dlaaaaaion and in the final 

datarainatlo . The body of the article baa been reworked} the 

baokfrouzKi shifts froa t^ seventh book of tte Metapjqfaics to 

tlia first book and to the T^ Anlaa , wldls the analyaie itself 

brlags into synthetic siiflRiary the oU>er amiroachos ehlcb «e have 

discussed* Again, hcRrevcr, the ccxiclusion of the article in the 

eoBBantaiy r<;-veal8 ita basic continuity nith the other critique. 

For other reasons it is now aaeesaary to give special 

attention to the central critical text of tte eoaBsatary on the 

fctsphysics . 

SoctioB 7 
TI» Cc— iitiry oa the JKUrittaiea 
»• hma aeaa that S.-iint Tboaaa eapiagrad a pattern of 
historical develqawnt in irtiich to place and present Plato and 

^ add' 9*>*«>l«r» 


«f# ill aX--^ — .— .K>n».rf.S?h 

lo (n'>:i>faq 2 ix ^mL? ^pmr ovatj 90 

_., ,_..__.. . - uk it'.'. _ 


tiMit the initial outline of thia hiatorlcal origin of PlatonieR 
was largely derived Cram Aristotle *a Jteteptygice . It Is Inter- 
esting to note that the Metephjeica not tmXy supplied the hie- 
torlcal outline which Saint Thonaa adoqr>ted and extended but 
alao itself very largely constitutes the Aristotelian swent 
which Ssiat Thones frequently Introduce* into that historical 
sceount, for long seetloits of the Motaptyslcs are sieiply ex- 
tended debates vith Plato and his foll owe r s . The iaportance of 
the Hetaphysies has been aaply substantiated by the source ref- 
erences !!iven throughout the nxresentation of the teocta in Part 
()tm» Moreover, the same evldenci? points overwlielBingly to the 
sixth chapter of the first book as a key text. TMs is the 
aotarec of the Mstorical pattern of Saint Thonas* analyses and 
of his basic eanc<>ptdon of the origin of the Theory of Ideas. 
NcNTf if ws read Sa&nt T\\<xaaa* coGBtent on this text, «• 

find hln sMiring along In perfect parallel to the littera, ex- 

plaining and parai^nrasing in close dependence upon it* But 

after he has explained the basic pattern of the Ideas and the 

■atlM—iticaa the coBB»nt suddenly breaks and a paragraph appears 

«fai^ does not directly correspond to anything in the Aristo- 

tellan teict. This is the text which ws have f^rouped aaong tbm 

najor analytic critiques of Plato. Thou^ it is not directly 
ad litteraa > It Is Introduced as fonulating the results of re- 
flection on the data of the text and cogatMmtary and thus Saint 
TbosMS indicates its relevance t 

Milniifiitf %b fr 

1b9 •r ■■t ntti ixio or. 

^,14*1* - vtr 



>i£ «S» 9i Ck^. 

MB "vi^l imp/ 
9M bt.. 

>Q#a^>i *i^ nl - ^ o* far 

nan ti^Mri ittil 1» 


Patet auten dlllffwnter Intuentl rationea Platonls quod 
ex hoc In sua poeitione orrairlt.... 

Iff he saya, »e meditate on the arguiaents of Plato, ws 
will see that the following points are the source of bis erro- 
iMoos p<»it1on. 

The approach is thus using the standard distinction be- 
tween rati ones and positio . But we are here f^resented not only 
with a ratlp-ppsitlo analysis; here the rati onea thereselres will 
be reduced to a basic source of error , to what Saint Thoaas else- 
where calls a " radix ." The rati ones to which the text refers 
are evidently those presented in ^istotle and in the CMRontary, 
thotigh it is Saint Thonae hinself ^^o supplies the final roduc- 
ti<m to principles* fee wouldj, therefore, look for the rati ones 
in the immediate context, but Saint Thonas hireelf indicates 
that the analysis has a wider bearing than this. For the re- 
duction here presented recurs through the Metaphysics in briefer 
foras and with erldent refermice to this first treatoent. In- 
deed, Saint Thooas on one occasion remarks on the frequency of 
the repetition, "ut dlctua est Bultoties ." The analysis here 
Bade is being presented, therefore, as a cmitinuous guide, an 
ultiaate fraae of reference for understanding the KLatonic ra - 
ti ones . The principles here laid down (which are Um ones we 
have alraady studied) must be iapliclt in the specific arguoents 
which say, therefore, be considered as instances or applications 
of the». A test of this asy be conducted bgr surveying the T^a- 
tonlc discussions of the cooanentary and drawing the arguaents 

boar m2" 

<MM Htm 




o>t oorroTS^sT J'n* 

«tm1 flDl/OUb 

•md •l«TiXAn» ad 
•« 9«ao wu rui mnb i^ 


attributod eltlMr explicitly or by way of ii^llcatloD io th» 
Platonista. TbB •xpUelt attributions taa-ve to do, firat of 
all, xtlth the a ggu ee u t troa sdenee vMch dea^mde the existence 

of iflMsterial and iasoblle ol^jects for definition azMl scientific 

arguBtentation. In specific eases the arg«N«ts are found to 

oove not only f^oei definition and scientific arguB«ttatl(») but 

ft o 

froffl the unlTersal as stich, flroe the u cwi in nultis , from the 

10 11 

eocBBoa predicate and front the ratio cossainla to ecrrespondo 

ing rottlltles. llie Aristotelian polemic includes argisBsnt* 

against, precisely, the real existenee of such objects, against 

the existenee of objects ha^ng the characteristics required by 

Urn a r g ua ewtatieiB explicitly leading to their exlsteae* and, 

flMIIly, ar guiii M rt s utiich point out dileeoMs crested by these 

charaeteristics or by t^w Platonists* refusal to foUos their 

WTgtuwt-a to a thoroughgoing logical conclusion. Tkis brl.ef 

•orvey Indicates that, aa far as the argusnaftaition goes, the 

]iA«4ure of Platonism presented in the MetaplXTsleg anci tbs c«a- 

■efitary inrolTee the transposition to the ontological order of 

■oMLities, relatlotwhips and qoallfleationa ehich are proper 

to the order of knoerledf^e and logic. It would sees, therefore, 

to be wholly consistent ^or Saint Thoaas to reduce ttaae rati - 

ooee to the Reneral pattern of crlticlsn and. Indeed, to find 

support for that crttlcisw priinarily in the Metaplysics of 


At this point, hosewsr, anycne fniliar with tte text 

of the c o B nent ary eill be inclined to object that there are 




;»itl» b«^atfl«J!ftl 

■,r: nf'J s<f*^ »IfE 


I iST7 

oi L 

S«W ( 


te J^ at 

-ivino ftLi^ W 

tg»t «f» 


ij Ji^y rf^st'"* ^i iwtiAaa- W iii* ^'iyv^ao^tfto: 


ratlongg of « quite different type which Saint Thorns attrllrutec 

to Plato. And the argoaent allei^ in support of this Tleir 

would not be Indlreet, for Saint ThoMu ■akes repeated fomal 

atatei^nts to this effeett 

Rio inprobat opinionsn Flatonis quantum ad hoc quod non 
concludebat quod c<mcludere intondebat. Intendebat enia 
Plato eoncludere ideas esse per hoc, nuod sunt neeeese swt- 
slbilibus rebus seoundm aliquen iMKluat* Unde Aristotelas 
oetendens quod idoae ad nihil nossunt senslbilibus utiles 
eese, destinjit rati ones PlatcHiis de rioeitiene idearun: et 
ideo dicit, quod inter onnja dubitabilia^ 'luae sunt contra 
Plat<»Mn, iUud est BM3cisuBi« quod species a Platone posi- 
tae nan videntur aliquid conferrc rebus sensibilibus, nee 
MRpitemis, sient Mait corpora caeleetiai nee his, quae 
fiunt et eomaipuitur sieut corpora eleiw^ntarla. -« Quad 
slgillatiR de omnibus ostendlt T>ropter quae Plato ponsbat 
ideas, cua dicit "noc enira."!^ 

Thus Saint Tfunas declares that Plato wished to eonelude that 
IdMts exist beesiuse they were necessary in soae «tty to sensible 
reality nad this quite independently of any lcnowled|!9» Koare- 
o»er, he asserts that Aristotle destroys the raf ones of Plato 
in shewing that the I<toa8 do not explain sere^ble being. Vie 
will exaalne the series of arguments which insedlately follow 
stateaents in the first book and which. Saint ThoiMM al- 
ly are directed against the Platonic rati ones of the tjrpe 
Just deeeribod. 

1. The Ideas cannot be causes of aotlcm or tnmsnutation 
precisely because they were set up to explain the ia- 
adbillty of scieneo and are therefore principles of 
laBobili^ ratlwr than of ehan.?e.l7 

2. T>wy cannot serve to explain knowledpe of the senai - 
bilia beomse ttmy are sefwrated from thsa«l» 

3* They cannot be exnrplar prinelplee because •» aside 
froa the aet«ph(7ical character of this assertion -- 

r{t .oiAn aft 

«l«4« ^ 

•«: # (mm Xf^llmi 

•^sCT %» 4 * atf ,iwfP3 


. - rt »» -. ' 


(a) M ••paratad mx9mpl9m th«y would rendar tba olnrl<»i8 
agancy of ianadlatA natural oauaaa auparfluoua; (b) aach 
indlTidual wonld ba in the abcvri poaition of having 
■aiqr axaaplars (this suppoeea a plurality of Ideaa cor- 
r — pondlniT to the plurality of formal ooncepta Cgaaua, 
wpttuima otG.j); (c) the Bp»ei9» wovlA ba at oaea tte 
exemplatoiB of the $'ein\xB aiK) the exen^lar of tha indl- 
▼idaal (this Buppoees not only a corra8poadafiee» aa in 
(h), in plurality but in structuro as nail). 19 

U, The Tdaas cannot be tJM formal intrinsic causes of nate- 
rial indiTiduala ainea thsy are aaparatad.^ 

5* Tbay cannot explain baconingy for, sinaa th^r vrs •tar^ 
nally unchanging, their affects ou?ht to be alwaQrs tha 

6. Iforeover, the FXatonists are inconsistent, for they do 
not posit Ideas of artefacts, thoui^h many things "be- 
coMO" tlurou^ art juat as natural things "becoRo" 
through natural agents ••^^ 

In all these argosents except the last (vtoieh merely 
pointa out an incc»i8l8ten^) the anbstantlal ground is a charac- 
teristic of the Ideas «hi<^ is either here said to be desrived 
tram Jllegitimate transfer of knowledcfe to reality or ^tae so de- 
riinad in previous texts. At no point is the desire of tt» Pla- 
traiiete to use the Ideaa as explicativs principles of sensible 
reality described as or emplcqred as a prenise in the arguiaent 
which sets up the Theory of Ideas. This analysis of a sample 
text is identical with t^t yielded by parallel texts throughout 
tha eoonentary. The facts are, tbarsf<»ti: 

1. It la clearly said that the Platonists set up the Ideas 
to ba ontdlogical explicative principles of sensible 

2. This desire nomhmn appears as a premise in aiQr arga- 
mant eoneludlag to the exlstMwa of tha Id ea s or da- 
temlning their characteristics as such. 




a <N( o^ btiic staa fnrt^r to •!' i(oJb1w aMbX «Af le ? 

1:0' t>»i)u(9lt SiM ^ btt mt 


3. The erltlque la iminly thia: that fiven the I4mm as 
they are deterad.ned by the arguawnts we have specified 
a» Platonic y they cannot be cntdosical explicative 

V9 are, therefore, tcrcod to give a aoasvhat different 
■eanlng to the terw " rati ones " when applied to Plato's inten- 
tly) to use the Ideaa as explanatory of tt» eensibilia * Let mb 
amy, then, that as philosophers the Platonists wished indeed to 
explain not only knowledge but the seneible world, that out of 
the search for definition and the reflection an knowledge they 
derived the Theory of Ideas, that Ideas were then used to aaks 
possible the general exolanation which they desired. Though 
thij did Intend to use and did use the Ideas as ontolc^cal 
principles, it is always an argiunsnt from knowledge iriiich, in 
the f ii^t or constructive nonent of tlte theory, is the dstensin- 
ii% prenise. The rationeg here are general phil<^ophical no- 
tives, not specific prenises, in an argunent and, therefore, 
not rati ones in the strict sense in which we have been using 
that tera. The previous analysis of the Plattmic rati ones of 
the cMinentary resains, toerefore, as it was, untouched by 
these abjections. Tlie conclusion therefore follows, that the 
operative rationes for tt» Theory of Ideas explicitly developed, 
iiEplied, arad variously referred to throughout the coisaentary 
are hoowgenaoTis with and indeed logically dependent upon the 
oltiaate principles of Saint Thonae' reduction, that all the 
oharacterlsties of the Ideas whethin: iosMdiately derived (such 
as their universality, iMMterlality etc.) or aedlately derived 


r* i I ,.r «)- rwK T 

»*)i «irtj iJitH D' 




rit**-! 1 f«i7. 

IK no 

jft be 

.'^^■"•y.B^i r:^.-.i. ' c.-'c 



(sueh «0 tbslr subaiantlallty In an ArlBtotalian 8«n8«) ar« doc- 
trinally and logically dapondaot solaly upon the oaae oporatlvs 
and ttltlsata iransral prlaslplefl* Tfasis Iho Platonic 
eoncernlnti; tti» Ideaa are preaented in tbs eossnentary 
«• "poro" poaiMmm in tho soase described in chapter Tlora*, 

and sr«, tlimr«f«r«, ferwilly related to the analysis first pre-> 
in Lectio 10 of tlw first book. 

Soction 8 
Tho Via Platimica 
Ts^si M havo boon studying the ratiOHJOsltio analysis of 

certain positions of Flato and the Platonists* we have found 
thaX this analysis reduces the positions to an interlocidn^ 
sot of prineiploo which, while deriving, at least -verbally, 
trcn oBBgr different sources, are progressiTely, in the works 
of Saint TbesAs, intonated md interrelated, M a ro ow sr, they 
hacTB been seen to be not specifically desifjned for an anti« 
Platonic poLeaic but rather consistent with and detiendent \xpon 
9M»ral view* wsod in aany other points of poeitiTB doctrine 
Iqr Saint Thi—s biaself « Actually tjw principles and f onnilae 
katve brox«?ht to sharp, clearly focused STMVts of omiosition to- 
tal episteiaolopies and astapbysics. 

To illustrate this ws a^r again taka tbe point of ne- 
eaasity or ineiobility which is indeed eruelal in this conflict. 
Already in the historical preparation for the Platonic argisient 


toft x^Har-H^ 


WBti r toJC! 9d^ bam e#A 

OHO •%> , ^elllti V • - 

-l^Mtt flik 'lel 4) xXXa9ili9*qv Jiwi ad «»4 «»(»« tut&d ft«»d 

OB^ ^ b boa dttm tatiitiftttoo 


«« fouad tbat aatorlal bving -maa diseolvcd into pur* beCMlBg 
and indetemdnaey and that, covmmfmmtly , no grofond tliere ra- 
oalnod for troth or cartltude. tttm «« find Plato aatting up a 
raalB of balng eharactariscd precisely hj itm aeeeaaitiee 
proper to thought, thos oadoned vlth the laautability necessar/ 
to aMrare selenttfie knoiAedfre. Thia bmos to aat vp a alspla 
•f^pooltion hotneen M» pwrm eontinrenoy of aaterial balng and 
the abaoluta neeeaalty of solentlf le definition and argaaeiita- 

i^ %it ia Saint Thoons* ^ew the satter la not so alaple. 
He concedes. Indeed, that pure contlnrrency, pure aotlon and 
pare Indeteralnacy can /-round no knawlailga and yield no trath, 
Bkit he also aalr.talnB that tfaeae are precisely laposaiblei if 
exlstemie la frraat@d, aooe neeeaalty la already preaant. " Rltill 
eidp eat adeo contlngena qalB In se allquld nacesaariv habeat .* 
to have acan that taaterlal belnf has. Indeed, the neoaaaity 
arising from its act of exiatetice, the neeeaalty of given fact; 
that It haa the necesaitlaa eonaaqosnt cm its fora <«dttioat 
mtAdh it cannot exist) and finally that it haa the noeesaary re- 
Xationa ;:?roi!nded In both form aad eaae . Theae are the oiitolotd«> 
cal w^ceaaltlea which are Inaoparabla froR aatarlal existence 
and which nake scientific knowledf^ aa wall aa ordinary tmc-il- 
adga of BAterial Udmi^ pcaslble. OntQlof4.eally, then, a sate- 
rial omtlty In Saint Thotsaa' -view prea«sta itaalf aa the uBifl« 
cation of qnalifieatians which, abatractly taken, are asiually 

- tf tkmt m4 WMH •^r - --';--'=- ftth*!* fift.^- '-- '-•'" ■-"■-^ m 

V - .- , .,-^^d iMirmitm tiukt «wm o _ . _ 

#. ww>% Vi^f oe >«n Mlir Mrt i^i^ imO^ 

'01 JH _ _ ^ -_ {^SiXO ^OMWM #i rfftMv 



oontradictcr^', yiBt neet in the conoreta •xistent* For it is a 
9Q0iiQeent ne awiBi<||Fj^( 18^ iwnl'wmB tim Btrueturo of ThoMistio 
IwlBK for «s oaoDot <ttstln9iii«b tbe contingsnalea and tba osoes- 
sltles vhdLch qualify it unlaaa we dlotdngulsh eatter aaA tarm, 
th« Id qiifld ani tJiai aot of exieteose. 

il»n iM turn to tha side of knowledge , baint Thonas is 
pointing out that it la tho «r«is neocc£»ities wldoh Plato is 
dfaMnndlng of the objoct. For it is not rmToly or espsclaUjr 
the BOtMBslty involTad in foraa vhicb Plato vlsbss to find in 
the ob;}«ct but ra-Uiar that ioraobillty vhieh tbe f ora has in vir- 
tue ctf itp^ ««^tsip» Jlii api 1iw Mi^0 r^ ^a3> fubject, not thct^^^ps^ty 
of f orMl reXationsMps wtAeh can be the content of aeienoe, bat 
the necessity of logical relations hipe. 

^,^. Tbe PUtoplc areuaant aay b« SUBnariM4, iff flfffflftlim . 
that there be dbS^vta of tcnoiaedfi;* idileh« in content, in Bsdality, 
in node of existeTice and in noirt of any qualification whatever 
tadLll exactly, point-by-podnt, correlate to and |>arallel the con- 
cept and intmitional existenoe. Saint Thonaa, on the other hand, 
linits this corre8p<Hidence to that which is asserted at the ob- 
ject, to the <^Jectivated and asserted cc»it«)t of knowledge* rie 
vishes, therefore, by reflactl(» to diatinipiish the aiodei 


qualifications of the knoner fron those of the thing knosn. 

If » then, the Platonic argusaent requires the wholesale 
transposition of tbe Bodalitics, relationshipe , of the inten - 

and distinctions of Icnovledga end logic to the real order. 

©fiabwRt "lo * '^ art* - r aJlidT .- 

.'a& «i: ♦i rw*" ;i> **»' V> sc- 

at yttt ol ^-T »T!»*v ni hff^lcvpi t^faaf'^WBi «(tt 

,tMutii vmUb ■!(# na ceenr.(f1i' in ' 'ia» tfiqso 

-< . ia 8i iin?,^.y tciif n? , j 

«H i,i». ' ' .til Ip <Iw»*W<» oa^'O^fti:- .-jnr a;- " * ' "" " " '* 
tea »-■ 

■smfaJL aAt lo ,»qM«nir :•<»? sd^ ^ noi 

«i«6no Xftvx «il^ ot ^t^ol ten ^koJ^wMi ^ • it^ J^m* .^ . 



it «Btalla a cbaracterlBtle memmrnunt rron th* cpnaidaratio of 
knowladge to Um d«t«rDiniition of thlnpa* Saint T1mm« atrassed 
the iaportaaea of thia in taia azplidt reversal of tte azpoai- 
tion of iha Da Anlaa . A perfect ainilltude is requirad b«t the 
aodel tor tha alailitade ia to be foxmci in knovladge and ttiis 
ia to be lapoaad upan reality. 

Tkaaa, theraforey are the prii^iples which conatituto 
what va have called the TJa Platoniea . In the taocta fron aMch 
it haa bean derived It will be found to \}9 attributed, irideed, 

soat clearly to Plato but also and alanst indifferently to hia 

foUoaera, the PlatexxLate. It is, therefore, Platonic, in a 

general aanac, belonging not only to Plato hiaeelf bot under ly> 

in^ aa well the conoMn and baaie poaitions of aubaequent Pla- 

toniets. It ia trua that Saint Thooas is aware of differencea 

— OBg tfaa Platoniata and that he diatinj^ulshes poaitions which 

are held by soqm Platoniata and not hj othara. let it is to 

t^ia grotaxi of the via and Ita radneiplaa that ha redneea thair 

geaaral poaitioaa* And, it ahoold be streaaed, there ia no 

othfBr fijeneral ratlo«'>oaitio analyeia of Platonira In tha works 

of Saint Thanaa. Aa far aa his texta fio, it is this that he 

If CO— only, behind ^ato and hia follcnrers.'' 

Horeover, this via is Plttonic in a very distinctive 
aa na e . That a sharp opposition in ^xrinciple atanda batwaan 
Plato on tha one hand and Aristotle and Saint Thooaa on the 
other, that the principlee and positltms are eonaiatently 

aliti ha« > 0Cf c tcl X»fio« 

. od ot et 




(kwi0Mt«d am Platonic, thamm points :%re ovnrvhelnlnrly sup- 
ported bgr the eridenee. In addition, howerer. Saint Thowaa 
iOEpresaly dlstimnrtshes Plato froa the early Krituralists, not 
onlj in the obviwis nointa of doctrlrie which diride materlal- 
Im and IntelleetualieK bat exactly in Ihia point of awthod: 

Est axrtem attondondua quod haec diversltaa inter Pla- 
tonoa ot naturalea accidit propter divorsar. d© rebus con- 
siderate onea. Raturales enln consl<ierant tanttn quae 
sunt sensibilla, prout sunt subjecta transsutationi. In 
qua unon stjbjectura succosalvo acdy^lt eontraria.*.. Sed 
Plato ex conslderat 1 one uni versaliuw dovenlebat ad po- 
mmduia princip^a serMibiliua mrure,^ 

The sane distinct^ on is made at greater length in In De 09n » 

•t C or , [7J. 

Zvon Pythajjorae, who Is ftrequentlj coupled with Plato 

at least in the earlier Thowlatle texts. Is here dletintndshed 

fra» Plato by the »«?» point, 

^cit er(»o quod ponere tirmra gt nuseroe pra? tor res sonsibi- 
les, et non in ipsis sensiblllbus, »lc«t !^haror!el fecR- 
ront, et itr^xia introcHicere species separataa, evenit Pla- 
tonicis is-ooter scnitatlones!, "quae est ^n rationlbtis,* ^ 
idast propter hoe quod parserutati sunt da definitionibus 
I'orua, quas crcdebant ran poose attrlbui rebus aensiblllbua , 
ot dictuR oat, Rt hac necessitate fuerunt coactl pooere 
qua8da!8 res quibus definitiones attribuuntur, Sed Pytt^sago- 
rlci qui fuerunt priores Platone, non parti fipaverunt dia- 
loctican, ad luan pertinet considerare definltiones et unl- 
versalia hajuraodl, quama cocsldsratio induxit ad Istro- 
ductionea idoaroR," 

And again th^s point is erajAaalaod by the fact that oxjt 
texta, if arranped In only a Tory fjeneral and obTloua chrono- 
logical (»*dor, show an increasing stress on Plato and the Pla 
tonista. In the early critique of In S e n t , t?Oj, Plato was only 
one of aany who were nislod by a corrion error; in In De Tr5n , t5j, 






Uus f^ytbjMorlcl and tbe KLatoqlci are liatad togethsr. In tbd 
latar toxte Plato aod tb* niiiMWi.i1 staod aloa» or are tite pa- 
trons of othor s^taBie* Thus Avlcebron is parallel to Plato, 
rankad hy bim side, in In Sont» 120]; be beoooes a foUover in 
De ^g« Great * a 3* £• It is, therefore, the via Platonica« 
wbeUier expressed in one or all of its fomulatic^is or by brief 
references to tbea, that distinguishes Plato and the Platonic t 
froD the anci^it Matiiralista and pjrthaf^oras as »ell as froa 
Aristotle and Saint Thosias and Bakes Plato the easter of those 
vho, to a greater or lesser exterxt, follosed the saan line of 
argunent. And this distinctiveness and this originative posi- 
tion of Plato hinself is increasingly stressed in the texts of 
^aint Thoeas. lie oay conclude this disciission with a forsal 
statwaeat of Saint Thomas in confirmation of the conclusiont 

Barcn autma doarus opinlonuiR divsrsitas ex hoc procedit 
quod quidssB ad inquirendaa verltatea de natura rerun pro- 
e«sserant ex rationibus intelli^ibilibus et hoc fuit pro- 
priuM P latonic<a'iira » quidao vero ex rebus sensibilihus et 
hoc faii propritw philoe(g>hiae Aristotelis ,^ 

j|igaia it is stated to be a fundaaental difference between Aris- 
totle and Plato! 

Hon erdn est differentia inter Aristj^|g|g| et Flatonaii. 
nisi In hoc quod Ha to posnl^ qxmd res qnae Intelllfliur 
eodes modo habet esse extra aalnac, quo node eoa intel- 
lectus intelligit, i.e. ut atwtracta et comsunlsj i^risto- 
teles vero poeuit rest quae intelli^itur esse extra ani^aaa, 
sed alio modo, quia intelllgitur abstracts at habet esse 
concrete. 1^*^ 

The Bsjor texts which have been the basis of discussion 

in this chapter were selected froa the total body o£ texts 



r4 #• atftC't^lMfet ^ i 


precisely because they i>resent«d Mm only elaborated and fomal 
ratlo-poeltlo analysis of Platonion to be found there. The den- 
tal led view of Platonic arpuiasBtatlon, of the via riatonica , 
has energed fron: the study. There resialns, boiMnrer^ the ques- 
tion of the relationship of \M.s via to the various poelti<»is 
which, within our selected areas of InvestlgatS on, are attributed 
to Plato and liis followers. 

The texts tbeaoelves and the evidence eo far presented 
ensble us to ^ve a partial answer at this nolnt. It is cl>vl- 
otts that the principles of the via Itself constitute basic 
Uieses for a theory of knotdedge and this Is confizT»d dearly 
by the fact that In the opening ajrticles of the eighty-fourth 
and eighty-fifth questions of the Pars Priaaj all the principles 
of the via are fotasd laid down aa expHcatlve of the Platonic 
view of hunan knowing. 

It Is eqTially clear that the via is presented as the 
proper arguisent for the Theory of Ideas and of 8^>arated sub- 
stances. The reduction of the rati ones of the fataphysics to 

the via and Its elaborate presentation in the De Substantlis 

12 11 

geparatls and In the De SpirltualJbua Creaturls ^ as the 

Platonic arguoent are al<Mie conclusive. 

The distinction dram in virtue of the via between the 

ancient Naturalists and Plato indicate also that the arguaent 

influenced theories within the area of natural phUosapiiy and 

this is eonfiroed by the formi statesent of Saint Thonasi 

Xwno'S f^ 






:| *i« LLi. 

^, .,^ •* Mr tiUbzw 

UiU to ^m*?' flitf *■!*.♦ HBO 

' £ 'SO'? MlMrff^ 

.•?■•!».-.<- it's? ff-jritrll ^r «vjhr 

-1 wfi 

.d airi 



Deinde cim didtt Causa satm etc., assignat ratiooea 
* qaten circa hoc ssaG:l8 deficit Plato quaia renocritiuj. Kt 
dicit quod causa fauius quod Flato KLnas poiuit vldere coo- 
fessa, Idest ea quas snnt onixlbus aanlfesta, felt lnexr«rl> 
antiat quia scilicet^ ciroa intelXlgibilla intentua, sexmi- 
bllibus non Intendebat, circa quae cat eiqwrlentla. Et 
Idtto 1111 phllosophl qui magiB studueruat circa res 8«nBi> 
biles et naturales, mLgia potoerunt adirrvenire talla i>rln- 
cipia» qulbtts posaont aulta sensibilia adaptara. .'>«d Pla- 
tonlci, qui erant Indocti existentluH, idest circa entia 
naturalia et sensibiliay respiciontos ad pauca sensibiliua 
quae eis occurrebant, ex ratiltis sennonibua val rationlbus, 
idost ax miltia quae in univorsali rationaliter eonsidara- 
bant, d© facili onuntiant, idest absque dilipenti perscruta- 
tione sententiaia prolerunt de rebus snosibilibus. 

Potest autea considerari ex his quae prae manibus haben- 
tur, quantum dlffenmt in perscrutatiooe -veritatis llli qui 
considerant physice, idest naturalit«r^ attondentes rebus 
seosibilibus, ut Iwracritus, at llli qui considerant logics, 
idest ratlonatliter, atteadentes coiBreuniljuB rationibus, slcut 
Platonlci. M osteodenduB eaim quod Bagnitadines aliquaa 
sunt Indivisibilea, Platonlci, logice procodentes, dlcunt 
quad allter ssquerstur quod autotrigonuc, idest par se tri> 
angultis, hoc est ioea triaungvili, imilta ertt, idest in nultoa 
tzdangulos dividetur: quod est inconvenians* 

Ponebat enin Plato onnius sensibiliun esse quasdaa ideas 
saparatasy puta hooinis et equi et siiailiuia, quas Yoeabat 
per se hcnlnsis et per se equist: quia scilicet, lo^ice lo- 
qirando, hoao, seonndwi quod est species^ est praetar Bata- 
rialla et indlvidualia parlnclpia, ita quod idea nihil habet 
nisi quod perilost ad raticHira speciel. Et eadaa rations 
hoc pojebat in figuris, Unde ponebat Ideara trianfwlcHiTUB 
BsnsibiliuB, qtkae hie dleitur autotri^onua, esse indivisi- 
bilen: alloquln sequeretur quod dividojretur in mult^, quod 
eat contra rationma ideas, ad quan partlnet quod sit unun 
praetor awlta. T-t ita non est inconvenlens quod sint raul- 
taa superficies triane;ulares indlTisibiles eonforass ideas: 
et esden ratio eat de aliis superficiebus.^ 

Thus tivB characteristic arguaaat of the Platonlsts eoo- 
■aads, de jure, the theory of knowledge, the Theory of Ideas, 
the theory of separated substuxtes (including God) and, to sons 
extent at least,, other theories in natural pMlosopfay. Two sub- 
jects are reserved for later consideraticn: (1) ths x<elati(»«hip 
of the -yja Platonica to the theory of soul and (2) tlw preelss 

i ..i/r^i 

r^J-;:, . c'.rp.'^ fittaf" /ujf- ivJVio'! 


3'S9q[ X 

-ciedcrt <9i; 


ss*b; sas* 



o&l»9^ «irtf (S) fciu luoa ^ tso«(^ sdtf oar aii^ io 



devslopownt of Saint Thomas' viev of the argaaBitt for separated 
substances. Keamrhlle, wo irlll proceed to atvady the poeitionea 
of the Theory of Ideas as they relate to the via. 

: ri«*_-tvtro'i.- «i 

r .^1 

• •^ «»»»• ««il4 ^'-Ki^ * «Vi.V ^Jjf Wit 






The Platonic ari^uaentation ndilch «e have b«an analys- 
ia« aay b« imrm briefly recapitulated. Plato accepted the 
eonsequencea of the theory of flux as they affeeted knoel«lge» 
The world of sensible and material reality caimot sustaia the 
lamtability, tlie universality, the certitude of scientific 
kiMvled^e and truth and, by tbe saoe token, cannot be the ob- 
ject of auch knowledge. let Plato was convinced of the exist- 
ence of certitttdlnal knowledge and scientific truth, and he 
had discovered the iimaaterlality and universality of haiBtan cog- 
nition. Iruth, Boreover, required tiiat knoaledge have an ex- 
actly corresp<MKtlag object, tie, thea*efore,r>osited a nor Id of 
isMiterial realitiee, ti^loh exactly ei^odisd ontologlcally all 
the conditions required for an object of scientific kaoailedge. 
Thus, Saint Thoaas tells us, the Platonic world of Ideas caas 
into being as an exact correlata to the systma of knowledge, 
its perfect and proportioned object. 

The Ideas initially are set up, therefore, as objects 
of knowledge, yet, it mist bo repeated, at the saae tiae and 
^ the saae arpaent, they are established as entities. The 



FIT bnr sIcftHnm ^.o bI-;> 

9rii —iCO ffHrr>': 

-*«jt^ -J. ^ _ 

-900 r 3 iB^JiAsiMTtiiD law 

a^9«t<'> as «mT»i»^ «cis #•• wn xJCJC«x</ ra^ .; « 1 ^k 

f oint 



charactaristies which sak« thm objacts of knonlcdga becc 
entitativs charaeteristlcs. 

It ia the purpose of this chapter to a x — !■ »» praeiaaly 
In ralat^oB to tha -yia Platorrira , thasa charaetaristlea which 
Saint Thomas reporta and daaeribas in so nany itajra and eont«zts« 
Va shall linlt ourselves to the characteristics of tiie Ideas 
thvaselvas and postpone the study of their relationships to 
sasMlble reality. 

It irtiottld be rioted that the general operative principle 
of the via Platoniea , naBSly, the dmwBd for exact correlation 
of knovledcre and its entltati-ve object j doos not of itself dcM* 
tandae tte dtitaai of tlaa >««altli« wMrld of abstract being. 
The principle can only be applied in vlrtuo of whatever Is 
tteofht to be tha ccffirtent, sodality and structure of knowledge. 
Conceivatoay, separated substances shoslng wKoy concrete differ- 
ences could be posited throogh the ssne geiwral principle ae- 

eordlns to diverse vays of reporting ihe data of reflective 

ondyais of kaowled)Lre itself. 

Tso priaary characteristics eiaort^, hemever, fron the 

satire arguaent. The new series of entities rtmst be rsBoved 

fyo« natter and aiotlon. The startln^-polnt of Plato*s arsu- 

oent lay in the contrast between the 5ndoteminacy and insta- 
bility of the asaterial world and the necessity, inantablllty 
and deterMtoatsisiaa of eclenee. Moreover, reflection reveals 
the iBaateriality of t nm mn thoiig^ Itself and a eertaia 


'-^•:— ral Jg iikte^/ie asm' 

* ,. j-». ^f^ tj» 


»fli Jo mc . 







-arts ••«i«r^ V JfCfttt aiiV 
_. . , uX 9tii BonmSBd ipj'-inK,^. «?.♦ nf t«X 

^.t» o# 



S0lty in <toflnitions and damam^jratlons. Ths Ideas Huety 
thersfore, aa iSalnt Thamm ao often rop«at«, be Inmeterlal and 
linVilln, theiy constitute a world of separated aubeta n eea, for 
on this shoeing, the objncts of knoirledge cannot, aa e oa a read- 
late haire thought, be locatod vitiiin the world of natter and 
change. The Ideas stand In sharp contrast to the sensible 
vorld, rMT^a unalloyed lar.aterial being. Yet, this conclusion, 
iriiieh Is ineluotabls on Plato's preadses, itself sets up a e«r-- 
tain Internal tension within Platonic 'Uieory. For, if the total 
force of the arf;t«ient inposes this conclusion, yet the daaaad 
for conrplete corrplaticm between knowledge and thir^ knoea re> 
quires that each Idea correspond exactly to its definition. 

Nov the definition of a natural or material spe«l«i, 
while lasHKterial as a species within the intellect and while 
not enclosing wiihla its Intentional content the Batarialitjr 
of each individual, does include, as understood, tfas gensral 
■aterial exigencies of the nature* Tliis situatlcKi is concrete- 
ly described in the dictux that %ha def initial of man does not 

Include baec oasa et bag cames but it doea include oesa et 


Saint Thoaas with his such nore miaaced and elaborated 

theory is able to handle this situation through well-known dis> 

tlBctions. A natural definition does not include materia eig -. 

nata but it does Ineliide nateria sensibilis consunis. And 

there Is no conflict beteaefi saying that a definition is Inceed 

«i«H* mmbt mtM.- •woiArs^aiMMiwii toft nr-' --^c-^^s,^;, ..i. ...i^ 

^ ~:;99 ttM*^ «#»)^ mtfdSuS i«i?ii»*HMi rv^/.n^rr..r../ .'^tor aiafiw 

•149 ft qpt; whMi t£««^t «e'- 9*tttmCl m. ui itoMv 

»&._- _ — •» iarmiamM to emL ■ «* ■ >. 

#on sael> oaai to tnksiml vX 

f» it ^ *2 •Wio a«i<i •tasXasl 


inmivsoiSslm boc &Mfi&HK amn dww aiii lit 

-gJts »1 — ' i^lwai Jtta 99ob imtttaii<^*^i jj>^j;..»i ' — '* — '* 


ontltatlYely «plrltnal and that It Includes, aa nnrterstoori, cojb- 
■M MitT j precisely b«ea\ui« Saint The as has d5Bt1iM»nl9he«! In- 
i«ntlonality tram Vtim purely ontolonical and has ssen the slaill' 
iuds of kiKWlsdi;* as ons of content iind«r8tood and not of (snti- 
Mttv* aodalltiAs. 

But Plato bad not achieved this dlstinetlofi and^ conse- 
qaently, eamiot allow for IsBaterial knowledfwe of aiatartal na- 
Udnte. At tliis roint the Plntonle artnoMnt tuxma against Itnelf 
thf^ Hi^#l||pal error forces a certain falsifieaticn of the 
▼ery data of reflection which Is supposed to deteradne the <*>- 
ject. If the Idea is to i^e wholly Ixnatcrial, the definition 
which nwst refer to it and not ijriAtorfly to serwible beings arust 
be wholly free fro» «att<»r, fonseouently, roRnrdless of refloc- 
tiTe analysis, the definition wast in no sense cootain the wate- 
riality of the spe^tes. The PlatoriiiBfit thus i%»oTe till sattar 
froB tlM definitions of natural species, equating the definition 
with pure Iwm aad« in effect, maArinc the aode of natural defi- 
nltlon ictentlcal with that of mathewatSeal definition. 

■er im nathewatieal definition tintouched. For here too 
reflection repeals s certain undorstanding of sjatarlality. Al- 
though "trlanple" can be eonewlTad without taking aecoont of 
either materia signata cr aaterla setaibllis connnnls , its very 
lntelli!»lbllity Includes the lln««s and planes of extension and, 
0aMHP*n^3yt Bsteriality •«- %hB water la intelllgibills eu— iiHls . 
llow can this r»atter he renersd? Only ty cuttinp out of the 


«d# ^( e «%«r* '9 «<(i tat 

nottttittat vfi^ i«>Mm|i» ,it«l»«is iji^ftfm '^«< AAAVjr^rVtofb Mit ao^ 

,no?i*«.»^t*b a* "to . hi 

oo^t^tMt *»'? .b«rfOLioMv aBJt^tsi9|»b AKtltt^sm'^'" »t vOk 


definition tba lia*s aad pl«a«i and ao forth | t^ils learea only 

OAoribvr, for If a triangle cannot be defiasd in tenw of thi>e« 

Unas, it suat be defined aa p^ore nunber, aimpljr aa "tbree." 

Tims a airailar tension within the explanation of natheeiatical 
knowledge restilts in a similar aolution and a disfigureiaent of 
its node of defining. A partial reversal of the movenent of 
Platonic arguisent — > froa knowledge to reality — la thus ef- 
fected, for the pure Inuterialit^ of the Ideas is the opera- 
tive point in revi8in$T the notion of definition. The isajor 
force of the arguaent establishes the pure iimateriality of 
the Ideas I the search for correlation to definitioos would 
argue for ac— aateriality In the Ideas. The second line 
yields to the first and the thecay of defin5ti(»i is conse- 
quently revised. 1£ the Bmeortd line had been pusiied^ it would, 
de Jvure« have resiilted in a cooqpleta abandonwent of the via Pla- 
toniea . 

Thus, too, both definition (whether natural or natha- 
■atlcal) and the Ideas beeoae equated with pure forms and it la 
all one to say that the Ideas are separated foms or that they 
are separated species. 

The entire realm of the Ideas is^ therefore, one of 
pure foroality, pare ioBatariality and absolute iKBObillty. 
Obvioxisly, the fonas will be abstracted and separated £raa all 
that pertains to the aaterial individual as such) for, though 
the Ideas nay, in virtue of their entitatlve subsistence, be 


lo ^ rt«lb a tea ttoiiuLcn itlimlm s «x sJ<U«d« ' ' ' 

Mil . <iT .M^^kE •<# ai 

-aT? ftJhr - -> » at 


ahonm to bo Indlvldualn or sinnnilArs, thay sore not nat«rlal ir- 
dlvlduala and can in no sense corr«lat« irith the 5nd1vl<?ual (Hf- 

fiMPSRces art sing froB natter. Th«re are no Ideas of naterlal 

BlnfTulars. H^nce, each eneelee or fom will contain only that 

•hlch belonf^ to the species foraially (In a strict sense) and 
•jp»elflcally.^° The Idea will then he wholly l«!entlcal with its 
nature and it Is this that la expressed by sayinsr that the sep- 
arated Tsen is howo |?er se or essentlallter . Ipsa natnra huaana 
or Ipsa essentia . 

Tet the saaje argoBBnt requires that the hoao per se. In 
emmoD with all the forras, ahould be specifically (thoach In the 
pure fomal sense described) the sans as ths aatertal indivldti- 
als, " For this reason Saint ThoiKis sucm in any theory whleli 
attenpted to establish our knowled^ of ssnarated substance by 

a nrorreeslTe fofiml abstrartion trcm natural species, a re- 

s«dblance to the po8ltl<m of Plato. 

Wow, the Platonic ar^^unent requires an exact correla- 
tion of knowledge and the objective world of Ideas, Consequent- 
ly, there wuet be a slnsrle corrpspondlng Idea whorerer we 
oadsratand a comnon natT:re, a ratio coshobIs , an ngaia- la- 

SBtitis , a universal, a distinct quiddity, or wherever we 

use a coikkwi predicate, predicatimi^ an unug de ^-roltls . 

If we conceive a cceman nature of nan and predicate It 

as a conron ratio of nany, there mist be a separated tmn, an 

erlstin? specific or formal nature, natura huaan^ . Thos the 

-lA I d^l* ' a 9fl si 1K9 f«ui «jD^ 


il»2tt» x*»^^ ^f» tf •#• «M«ifT tfn««« iwwi—'i tlxiV 'W^ ^.ftlA 

-•fflntio^ ^»«x» «• •frT t B n '>i Jiswrrrntr :^ff»i*ftl<» •<!# ,wpll 

•S^&E !& ffi£ ^ 8MJbteAite*iet ^ •t B SiAv tq aosaon b «•• 

CIS ^iMB ■» s f -VKwdi «xnjrr " 3 • •• 

aif» aMiff .^rv." f^ «t!!i^.«a; «9ViMi iiMMift''B »iU»ac(s sflri#«lx» 


unft^ aad slispliclty cf each Idea is detorminad by tbs unity and 
sioplicity of Boao corraapcwKtlng concept dlKcorverablB In knowl- 
edRO. ThlB involves, by ii^icatJon, tha co^lete univocity of 
Urn eoneepta so uaad as a basis Sar r^ostulating a singXe ccarre" 
sp<»)ding Idaa. The Platonlsts saw this, for tbey thessclvos re- 
fused to posit a single Idea where predication was aBevandxm 
orius et uosteriua. This they thought to find in nuoibors and 
so they did not assert a single cannoo fom for number in p,en- 
era! or for figure in general. But their objeetivation of Good 
and One as well as of genus iraplied a failure to rec<%nlze the 
aaalogical character of the Oood and the One as wall as ths 
fact that genus cannot be considered as siaq^ly one. On this 
basis Aristotle can direct an argunent, practically ad bociines- , 
against the coimon Idea of Good pMilad by Plato. For even 
granting that oach concept desands a corresponding Idea* the 
cwicept of Good falls in the saae class as nusbcr; it is predi- 
cated secundum priaa et posterius and cannot, therefore, be cor- 
related with a single Idea. It should be noted that, in this 
ease as in that of definiticm, we are at a socond stage of argu- 
iMntation; tha general drive of tlie via Platonica depcmis, for 
detailed restilts, upon the analysed data of k owledpe. Con* 
ceivably, the genaral principle could reoain intact, while the 
Oood could be treated soaev.hat as nusber and figure. Uowawr, 
Plato and the Platonists, as Saint Thonas knew then, had treated 
the Good as parallel to specific definitions and, consequently. 


lo V o^ ^* ^mliAoi : pidT •<•!»• 

•-•ii Mrvxo&£2i^J ^^xT 'ml ««x:aJ was a< 3J:;:.ttjJ£X i »ui i^xuauoqe 

£^ : WW Hv .ysq tnmiv w»bl i oi bowl 

^H« ft '^ ot td^fffttdt p»d# aXtil ,jl^^ i© SH^H 

•MNQ ai i3(te« «iS awl - tl^tv a #v«««t *o» bib xftdi em 

booO to fiDilsTli9«tdo YxMl^ lu6 (il CTaill nol ^bo Jurx» 

.«fo v^qflUta w Jirxobiwioo wf i»ti4 ^9«:1 

ti ^ x^iAat/aA-n t _ YVLLb mo mLMiltA utt^ 

jwv* «1 »o^Ajn yfl t teoo lo mM irmndo «(# #ml«s« 

wLt ,«0JbI iaib'>o'78«tiix> « ■iw)wi>b ^Q<»aao9 4«mi ^j4# s< 
-ib«^ ai il fMcftHun .at slU't 590O lo 4<fS9m>9 

-•»o arf ^•«l«n({l «ioixn»» fins c ■^— "— ?2 ^ a glrtq r- ' ' "-^tms 
sttOi at ,iadi km»9ti ad Muoda ii '.Mbl ml 
>iiyis lo tsaio tateo»a « #4 rta •« ^noiiiailab "i^ ia4i at c 
•sol «f iaaqab aatnoiari «Jt7 a4# Id avjNl) XrsaB«| aiil ;aoi#«J«NW 
.jioS man;i y» AdAb b««x££aa ori^ ooqv ^9*£Mt»^ t- 

(tsrwcK .migjtl Jboa iiwfcjiin «• ^^diraoM b«t«« ~ oJCvo? booC 

b«ifi«it bod «ii«i.t mud HtmosCT in >iM boa otat^ 

«^J: ;;9 ,bc& flootiisilaf) olltoaqe oi l»lXtiruq m bpoO ad^ 



by ia^>llcatlon at loast, aec«pt«<1 thc» unlToclty of Ita con- 

If th» unity of each Idea Is to ho d«t^rwliiod by th« 
unity of concepts, tha amltlpllclty, distlnctnoaa, organisation 
and interrelation of the Ideas is to be deteralned by t)i« pat- 
tern of conceptions. There nust bn as »any Ideas as thers ar« 
gsnsr a and sp€K:les ^Inclndin;? the unJ^eraallgra — > uniai — bomaB 
— > ens ); hence, it is by Xha 2da Platontca that th« nuriber at 

lit^flrsted substances 5e determined. The subordl nation of the 

Ideas Is likewise detftrrained by the order of priority in thouj^t 

and by the pattern of genera ^nd species . The "One'* stands at 

the top because it is the sl'^lest of all concepts, the iiost 

eo —O H and -rost urrlTflrsal, The distinctions that divide the 

reals of Ideas into separate entities follow the line of dis- 
tinct concepts J <witolo?7ical distinctions aust parallel intelli- 

^ble (listinctlons. This point Hves rise to objsetions and 

difficulties, since it a^ain assiancs, in the actual working out 
of the theory, a rather sinple view of conceptual distinctions, 
the IntRrrolatlonshlpo of f^enus and specific difference warm sooe- 
what too coaplex for so cavalier a treatannt. The f^miB nust, 
fM tfCBB sense, be in the speMes, yet can be understood in a 
•aparato concept,*^ This interrtenetr'5t -^ on in understandlnp is 
cfBMlstent with conceptual distinction, but it carwiot he trans- 
ferred sisply to an ontolorical statiis. But whaterv diffi- 
culties nay be InvolTed, the fact renal ns that loni rally the 


t lit >nii 



biiu riMfctoeC*^ tt' Mil feMTl) ^afeMT fMT ^.MwtranJtfBltr «£dls 

,ie0K asOBB iMT .ioaalwn/ • i»lX»nu» ^ Wi -» eo^ iMitr 

A el tec- J Mf Or. ' Kt 

sir{# 7:IIs»hKiX toft wniBwr #tal «f# t^^o^- ^^ tv wl^Xvo 



Flatonlints most rorrelat* an ootolottleal distinction with •very 
concet>tual dlotlnction and did snaintain this by positing sub- 
si slant universals corrsspondinf; to nanara as vail as to sps- 

Sinro the Platorric arRuiaent aims to oosit objects of 
knowlsdgs vtdeh are coimtarparts to tho concepts of the alnd. 
It Is likewise obvious thtt the Ideas must be intelligible 
•ntitlesy inteUlRiblleo in actu and evon intellectae in actu.-' 
Tids Bust bo interpretsd in a strict sensr. .saint Thonas vould 
■olatain that separated subetances ore lnt«lli;7iblo because of 
their freedom froie satter but the i ntelligibles here in ques- 
tion ars so not cmly because they are isnaterial but nore dis- 
tlnctifely because they derfve frcsi the order of knowledge, 
being Intelligible in t^ aaae 8«>8e as the verbua within the 

Sorsorer, the abstract character of the Ideas is dis- 
tinctlTBly stressed. This ooint beeonss particularly itrnor- 
tazit when applied to the traoseendentals. The separate exist- 
ence of natural spades is riewed by Saint Thonaa as a patent 
absurdity, which he flnrta to be contrary to both Faith and 
reason. Their existence, therefore, he constantly assarta 
to be Imoaaible since natter is essential to their constitu- 
tion j ha frequently refers approrlnpjly to Aristotle's rejection 

of the position. Rut V.\b existence of an Absolute One, Oood, 

Being is not only r>oesible but necessary and, for this reason. 

blflcxr ekfe • « a. 9d Jmob aid? 

-aowp ni frf«r: at- 

>alb •"«■ ' ««i t^^ •« 1 Ml 8-. 

•^atx* a^A^iiKT** mil ••. ad^ t nadw 4nM 

Jnatoq • B» aaaaftt folafi t^ Imaaiv al aatoaqa Lvwiam 3» aane 

tn» tUla't d^otf -^ -109 acf o^ ttatJ mt A»JMr ^v;f Mb'itiada 

«^<»«aa ii£.}itaifrK}9 ad t* ^*^ 

>viJfc^«»9 tkmU a^ iAlioaaoa jol y»St/m aoata aJU^laaoqpUt ad stf 

jsi>jM»»taT *»aWo^«JNA o* " 'wopail ad faaH 

«!s»aft9? »lii# t»"l «tea ^ ii. 4ti4 r , , _ *o# »:^ . 


as «• h«v» •••n, 5«int ThoeMUi takmm oTAr, through an iQjprovliig 
interpretation, the Platonic aseertions of The One, The Oood, 
The First Being. If, however, we place the Platonic aMer-> 
tlons in direct dependence on the via Platonica , certain char- 
acteristics energe which are wholl/ inconsistent with Saint 

Thoaas' doctrine and are expressly rejected by hin. For the 
Platonic Good is the coaaion notion of good, an abstraction 
aad a "uniTersal, " the cosjoBon predicate of all good things, ^ 
really a logical entity. So also for Being and Gns. This 
is precisely what the tibsolute One, Being and Good of Saint 
Thoaas is not. The Ipsiaa iiase which is Ood is not the logical 
concept or the coaman notion; on the contrary, it is an onto- 
loglcal follnoss that outreachos any possible human concepticm 
and cannot possibly be a aere counterp>art cut to fit perfectly 
and neatly a Had ted concept. Moreover, the Platonic argu- 
■ent leaves open tite question of the cooplete ontological iden- 
tification of goodness, unity «ri being in a single first prin- 
ciple. Actually J the identification of n^odness and unity is 
attributed to a Platonic view that theee two constitute a single 
identical forraallty, a single ratio . Thus the positing of a 
sinRle corresponding prlneinle is wholly in line with the Pla- 
tonic argtawnt. No special reason is alleged for identifying 
being and f^ood; but a particular type of Platonlsa is recognised 
la which the identification is not effected and the Idea of Be- 
lag Is separate from and below the Qeod, on the pirloeiple thai 


•Tads alA^»» 

"i.* oT<en(fC Sft^JLt 

/*v*:x T n J 

tto** *r.> 

Xq »« ,■» 

, tr.\.~ 


.-111" A rjgn 



-«^sq .t»«n «Xsi^-„_ _ „; ^...1 .j»iflB , 

yti^ t •90% t>9i]%Lla ai (K>i|a«^ XAi;»e<ii oM .1 

ftffvaeX <^aarH 




!^ood Is a vider nredlcate and a taoro common concept. A slid- 
lar dlscasfliofD could be conducted concemlnpr rtta p«r sa and 
Intolloctu a per am * Tn Platonim tho hlrhast vmrtftctians turn 
out to be a mdtlpllclty of flret prlnclplea, eiieh limited to 
Ita ovn specif le essence, tailored to a concept, preeiaely be- 
eatiee of the basic drlTB and nmseure of the Platonic argn- 


nent. Tn Snint Thotue, the artninent that f^stabliehea the 
first principle as Ipstm Bese denands also the inclusion witttin 
it of the hlj^hest perfeetJons in an infinite ontoloi^eal unity, 
Tha pressnre and influence of the vi a Platonlea irithln a phlloso- 
phj or a theolosy can be dlscemsd in function of its tendency 
to aaintain (l) ultir«te ontolomieal MultiT>11clty 5n the first 
principles of these nerfectl one and (2) a self -enclosed purity 
in each principle. It is obvious once again that when Saint 
IkOBBS accepts the Platonic statenent of a ^irst Principle, he 
is not accepting it foraally «» it derives froes the proper Pla- 
tonic argonents. 

... Arlstetelee non intendit Inprobare oplnloiissi Platoais 
quantum ad hoc quod ponebat unun bonus separatun, a quo 
d ependeren t Cnnia bona, laa ipsa Arlstetelee in daodedara 
Mstaphyslcorun ponlt quoddao bonus snparatua a to to uni- 
vwrso, ad quod totm tudversm erdinatsr, slcnt exercitus 
ad bonus duels. laprobat auten opinlanen Platonis quwtua 
ad hoc, nuod ponslwt bensB separetun esee grmwdaa Id— i 
coBiPuneiB OBinlm bonorun; .^9 

It should be pointed out that, .ilthou^ Saint Thflsas 

■akes no express reference to this difference, a fuadaaental 

difference is here iaplied in the view of being. For Platonlsa, 

beinR constructed upon a basis of distinct specific concepts. 

-1 £ v>at l<j:. £«" a i«x 1W05 

t(KTobR»» B^i lo wt^wv^ at iMtrrft')«lt> sif ar ' « 'se x/h 


ir»«t« <— or "btflQc" Ilk* any oihvr eoncept. It has no nrlTi- 
lUfWl poaltlon •• act or p^rfttctioni no ov«r -reaching rafcrsTwe 
to all other perfactiona. It tbos appeara alonqaido of rl^are 
*'**^ intelllgere , Irraducibly dlffarent fToa ttaaa. Nliaraaat ^ 
Saiat Ihimmitg eaea la tba aet of vwtary perfection and so llaa 
oQtaide, ae to apeak, of tha pattern of coneepitual eeeeneea* 
It la beeanee of tkla insight into ease that the setablishaent 

of an unlijBited esae ia at the saaa tlaa ttm establietaaent of 
Infinite Perfection,^® 

Froa this brief reatan of the characteristics of the 
Ideas as described by ^aint Theaas* it con be seen that these 
character isti OS are deri-vative fron and ccmnl stent with the via 
Platooica « i^oreo^er, when the Ideas are considered as thus for- 
aally related to the jXa, t^ieae charactex^iatiee lead procisely 
to the rejection of the Ideas. Our prerioos analjaia of the 
Platonic argunentation as well as of t^ie technicBl treataeot 
adopted by ^>aint Thoaas ia thus confirnMd. 

floe wr e r, if further oonflraatioa i« neeessary, it may be 
foMKi in a ccnparison with the theory of Di'vina Ideas ebich ia 
part of 6«int ThcaiaB* posititm doctrine. For pe r h a jjs in no oth<^r 
particular ia there nore clearly apparent evidence that Saint 
Thoass incorporated Platonic thaoriea into his oen thou^t. 

If ae examine tha treatattnt of the T>ivina Ideaa in the 
tMi.1or contexts « ee find that in the eomentary on the Sentences , 
ia the Pe Veritate^^ and in the Suaaa Tbeclofdae^ the section 

•ell • >• io» wtf a- ?iff *nl*8 

,... — u...-„ — . ™^ — «-; ^w^ <<t| Ai%i«o.' --i «M,#? 

>. te ^' 'iac flw !• 

_. arii OB TutaaesBoo Mftf af ^«ifl tall mr ^nixo-tnor 


on the Idsas laaBdiatAly follows the discusalon of God's knowl- 

9i9», while in the Ck>ntr« Oentllea it is pert of that dlccue- 

slon itself. Kow, when the argisnntstl on and the internal 

orgsnlsation of the text* are studied, this collocation is 

found to be intrinsicall/ deteredned. 

Xbs discussion is eoMtinrlnd by a group of interwoven 

lirlDciples: (1) the absolute perfection of Ood's being," 


(2) the abeolute perfection of God's knceledgBy-^ (3) the ax- 

«iq»lariSB of God's essence and of his practical knovledgSf' 
(U) the nature of God's creative activity as total, Ivaedlate 
and intelligeBt, (5) tkM abeolute sinplicity of Ood.'^ These 

prsaises are derived froe Revelation and the Christian tradl> 

tion as well as from rational argvaMnta. Hav we encounter 

the vMdMrntaadlag of exlstenee as the ultlisate act and of 

Q«d as a pore act of existence. 

The discussion of Trod's knowledffe proee«x)8 In the light 
of theee prenrlses and princioles as a deterril nation of the 
loMvledRO to be attributed to 'od and of the naaner of the at- 
tribution. In effect, uaii% these principles as nores, ^alnt 

asks a long list of queRtlonst Does God know Hlaself? 

Boas Us comprehend lilnself?'^'^ Is bis knowledfta "seisDee," 

"habit," "aat"? and so on. uith regard to things ottwr than 

OiA, the inwdiately datemining principle is thlsi God's knowl 

•dge nust bs exactly cotemdnous with tils creative aetivlty and 

pOMsr.^^ Since He creates tbs total being. His Vno«led«e is 

also of the total being. 

<» XaowtoE Mtt Jan* r n Mit Mrtv « : «ai« 

'■ lo n- mKS 

.«• •«*(€) ^tr " , »»fcO0 fl» iwlln \ «f« (ft) 

9««if? .EidC ^ t^^v^^valc •Jrf'ywfK 9ii i roJvrf fen* 


>* la tmt «inf • t* b«(* 

9d» ^ mr* ■ • - - ♦Bwt* 1S» 

•.i* wCI 1» -Mil to iiojt iieo 9i f tr. atf ^Bt- M«ib»£ii>r«nf 

%«aBal9a' i aii tMrt 


Th» •ntlre theory of rivlnA cognition, both as to Its 
•bjvets and lt« nMuoMr, la vorimd oat uadar tha ipilaanee of 
Dirlnciplaa, befoi'q tba qu^.ation of Idaaa Is raiaad. 

Kian ^:>alnt ThdMsa doss approach tha qoaotlon, ha firat dator- 
■liiM tha oaanlng oT tha word "Idea,** the " ratio Idaae" ; ha 

than aasvara tha standard qii«stiona: Ara thera Idaaa? Ara 

tbaro eany Idaas? Idaaa of trtiat? by applylnr this defini- 
tion to tha doctrine alraady alaboratad for exe^larlsn and 
knowladga* Ko new daTelopaoBt In the stibatanco of the doc - 
trine appaars within thesa cfoaatlona. Tha siibstantial doc- 
trine has already baan aa tabliahad and ovarythlag proceeds aa 
if 5aint Thomaa war* now oeoupied in finding, within his oan 
doctrine, aiudogoas for the Idaaa as praswitad to hla by the 
Christian aa well aa tha philosophical traditi<m. This is ccm- 
finwd by the faet that in the Contra nentilas (aharw tha dla. 
cusslon -« significantly — is not davolopad in function of 

aactoritatas ) the entire doctrine is worked oat with hardly a 

■aation of the word '*idea". Tha question deals, therefore, 

Mii so BBieh with the derelopwent of a theory or the Incorpora- 
tion of a doctrine aa with tlM incorporation and datand nation 
of a tradition of auctoritatas . Froa Saint Thcoaa* aathode, 

we would know that such aa iaposlnpr arriqr of auctorltatoa , both 

of the aaneti and of the philoeofrtii , would not be rapndlated. 

And so It Is indeed that ^>alnt Thonas finda points of applica- 
tion where the word "idea" aay bo used. But the procedure is 


tes f *>1 !»*f*r<; :r «* now 

•iSSill 5J2*. J& «»** 2. !!!£ St £lL.- ^' 

HMD ahf .'• mn €*^ vamoaX imtmS n 

-•ifa a^ nariw) r__ fotfi •tt^ ijd 

-«fio«o«rt •<# •» T**'* • ^ * '"""^ Hit •ri» dMttr4N( *KI 


not as easy as tbA snooth-readlnf; t«xts would at first sss « to 
suggssty for th* analonr b at u san th« Hlatonlc Td«as and Tho- 
ndatie IHrliie Idsas is awsiit atminsd. For Tram the stand- 

point of ontolo«:ieal exsaplaritj. It Is ths T)lvln« essence 

which should be called the sin^^e loea of all thincra. Again 

as a striet ■sdlim of knoiilsdge, it is ths Pi Tine essence 

irtiich siiould be called "Idea", a single idea. If «e look 

for the plurality of ideas, thore is no plrarallty of entities, 

no plurality of principles or aedia of knowledoro} the only pla- 

rality lies In the por e objects of kr.cmled?e, in that Ood knows 

ths total imitabillty of ills eesenco. The foraae intelleetae 

•re not verba or spocies a they are sl^>ly iriiat God knows dis- 


Thsr* iSf in fact, no point in Thonistic theory, at 

irtiich the Ideas may be neatly Inserted and an effort is rsouired 

to achlete Uto insertion. Thar* is an awtanLrdneas in the neees~ 

sary distinction of essence as exssq^lar, of essenos as ■edimi 

cognitlonlB, and of iiiB rat' oneo Ideales ( « cure objects of 

knoiiled)?e) as ideas. In a nay. Saint ^lioBas alaost seeae to 

conceal ths sidnrerdnoas of the situation by a rapid and alaoet 

unnoticeable Koveiasnt between the slngidar and plural fom of 

"idea". Ths "idea" teralnoloey «^ not designed for Thoadstic 

doctrine and seens. Indeed, to be loss than felicitous, 

used to express it. 


. •«*rW ai& s£ #i ,-?;«T ' — '-- la ^olnr 

iool «v IX "^.Mbt 9ii»ntm m ("saMT" faidCisd «r txlmnSu jfsltfir 

ammA teC AmI* «t ,' - 'HwH 1o alMe*} tr 't at wML XtlUn 

". odx •e«iR»«A« •Mi %» ■^ilidMiJir-.i: l«4<oi «ti;t 

bmtitptfi ai J*fotl« HA tstc I^a^sf - «^ imT \m asobl «U itoiihr 

^ «nBot Isnvls^ bos ■u>Xi;9>fit8 ttcJ^ ov ol 


A MMMB MT U— lit ahiah «pp»ara, Tariausly prMwntvdf in 
all tbMtt context* nust b« notvd hers, ilMiugll its ftill lTlt<»- 
tioa will rM dioeusaad later. The ergiwit ie flret derveloped 
in the earliest text, at the very beginning «£ liietinctlon 35 in 
the first book oT the SwiMMai 

ten* enin agena habet aliquan intent' one* et dealderiua 
finis J oisne auten <^©aidf»rlU!B f^Ms yxraoced-'t allqua eopni- 
tio praeetitoens finen, et dirieene in finen ea quae aunt 
ad finen. Sod \n quibusdan iata cofnltlo non oat conjuncta 
Ipai tendenti in tineni undo afwrtet qiiod dirigatur per 
aliquod priua agnns.... Ft Ita eat in omnibus quae a^unt 
par aaeeasitaten naturaaf quia heran operatio est detend* 
nata pmr intelleetiai aliquea Instituenteat natursr ... undo 
<q>artat quod prijaa non agat per neeeasltaten naturae, quia 
aic non oasct primtn, aed dirigeretur ab aliquo priori in- 
telligente, Oportet igitTa* quod agat per intellecUaa et 
voluntateLi. 7" 

The inportance of this arguiaent liea in the fact that it 
inrolvea the coaplex rvlatlonahip and clear eatabliahtwnt of ef- 
ficient and final causality and inpllmi, as ?«11, exemplar cau- 
sality. Thus a theory of causes in which each type of cause has 
ita own defined nature and in which t)ie causes are interdependent 
in a definite way lies behind the arg^asient . It ia precisely an 
argunant of thia type which Saint Thoeuia proposes in the cqb- 

■entary on the Ifetaptysica as an alternative to Plato'a and as 

escapin^r the Aristotelian criticiso of exsaplarity. For ths 

present it suffices to note that arguBMnta of thla aort ar^ ob- 
viously foreign to the ria Platonlca . 

The Thonistic doctrine of the rivine Ideaa is, there- 
fcre, founded on preaises and argments quite different froa 

upon which the Platonic theory rests. If we apply the type 

-saili^t LLA wit ti^tmdt ^a^t^. hmton ;oo swcU Mm 

-at . db nuo 

•la Ic ILdaiim •umX- dsftoiJeXen xoXqMOO aii^r tMvXbvnl 

BM txnt «*oiflXH 0(;f mtfaerv^SM im m» . t cm y^minmn 


•wrrt iovwlUlb sliffp p" "- 

»qx* ari^ ^Cqqc «« !tl .e*»e% xto«o» oinot»S^ miS .6i 


of ratlo-poaltlo aialyBls naad bj Saint Thcnas in De 3p, Cr»at », 
5f c. i7i» ve find that, pr«cis«l/ becaw* of the diverse ▼!»• 

•■plflgr*df th« reaultii^ "Ideaa" ahcNr dlTorse and apptmmd tiiar- 

acteri-'ties. The Platonic ld«aa are aubslstent and dlatinct 

entitles; th«y are universal and of tialTersalei they in no 

le include aatter; thojr are principlea of kno«ledg« of een - 

aibllia t the DlTlno Ideas, on the other hand, are not entities, 

77 7fl 

leas distinct entities} they are of IndiTlduala as ««11; 

irfien related to naterlal being, tlitey nint include understanding 



of matter} they are not principlea hot rather purely and 

solely objects -of -knowledge. 

The InTSPtigations of this chanter, tberefcre, cenflni 
and illustrate tte ▼ia-posltio analysis nado in Chapters One 
and Two. The der«ndence of the Theory of Tde«8, in Plato and 
Id Saint Thonas, on respectively different viae , is dispGLagnBd 
in sharp contrast and it beeoaes clear why adaotlve preeedures, 
which chanf^e th» doctrinal specification of the theories, is 
Bsesssary when the la tonic "Ideas" are incart>orated in 
Theniotic theory. 


Mnsi^fb i»dS lA bait 9ft 

or -r-" i;-iJ»."'* ---^ 

tea o*£XN at ,8»fl»i lo >n»«aY wW lo »; 

■1 hO#S^O<77D9Kl 9V« "«» 

/ H.- .^ 'X .H 



Th0 lB?xa^ance of Saint Thonaa' aBditatioM on the «eU - 
t^^yglca of Aristotle has already been atrosaed and, indeed, the 
evidence deployed throughout this study constantly ra«q>hasisea 
the central position, particularly, of the first book. The 
close relationship of the via Platonica analysis to the Ariato- 
telian critique was studied previously, but at tida point in 
our study it beeoaes necessary to address special attention to 
other developnents wltMn Saint Thonas' cooaentary. 

As Saint Thonas understands it, after the prooeaiui of 
the first book, Aristotle begins to develop the science of oeta- 
physics."^ The first step and, indeed, the substantial part of 

\l» first book is devoted to a revianr of the opinions of previous 

thinkers respecting the cauoea or principles of being. The 

guiding lines of the discussion are sot out by a briof recapitu- 
latiui of the four causes developed in the Physics . The nain 
(IiMWti(», therefore, has to do with the ultimate explicative 
principles of reality and the context la patterned and particu- 
larised by the theory of the four cauaea. How, it is within this 


*•« ^ffWKnuto 

C.3ati</5ii.' 2 .' "V-t^i-iJ SV^, & ri= 



•> ^^ »n »iv^ 

mjotvarui to aool;. tfrnn » o^ b»^«f«b e: 

oell<lr .icf • x^ ^rue ^im ««• aoi>»««::;-jiiu 'bd^^ ^-o uvoiZ - 

also «1T ^.e^_ <<* Tto 

-aoliHE/" <'iii»*r^*. •'>o »AJ * attlqisNliiq 

8in^ oMlJNr el i.' ^ -vol ea^ %e T)n»(^^ *<^ ^ bethul 



Ileal trtam of refarence that th« first «icpo«ltlon and 
<srltlq«i of Plato •|ipMW> Th* ^uatlflcatloo for 5ntrocJucit8 
Flato hnn 5b the fart that ho first clearly Introdaort tto 
fM«al o«t»«,^ M w«ll an the allapad fact, which »• h«f» ai^n, 
ttat Ktato Md tha Platoniata Intended to aaka the ld«M func- 
tion m an analo«w» to all of rrlatotlo'a emwan, that ie, as 
ultlnata tacollcatlva principles of the sanslblo world. Ifc>ra- 
9mr, Plato la said to belong In thia netapl^iRrtBA eantcxt nor© 
properly than tJv» natural nhlloaqplwra, boemee. In 

Mpamtod wbstaaoe., ha op«»d out for M»elf the ?roblow of 

6 _^ 
fha totality of belwj and not Barely of Material being. XJie 

T^fT f* ars indeed nostulatwl OB prounda draw trwt the nature of 
tavn knowledge, but, once aet up In this way, they are forced 
to \mrom, together with setter, tiie «etapto^7«leal prtnciplo* of 
soMlble reality. Thus Plato's theories^ m they appear in the 
flTBt book of the HetaphyaicB, are mvsented as a total unified 
«Wi.d view, for the Ideas thesselTse constitute the l«Birt,enal 
eerlid and toftether with the eangibllia fill out the foil round 
«f beingsj In addition, they are ths tatl'nate eTnlanation of 
HMHIfeiW* »^ ^^ natter, of the ewnelbilia . 

Tn ear earlier study of Saint Thcms* reduction of the 
orltlque of the I fctapicrsice to the Interlockini? T«*<nclpl«« ^ 
the jiA Platonlea , we ear that the Theory of IdMS, as expooed 
la the ■ ^Up l ifs lea , was totally dopendtBt upon thoee princi- 
ples. Since, then, the detemdnatlon of the exlatence and th» 

_» ^ M. * __ _ » ^- 


(M ,?1 ^r>r'> , ^ a* «» OD^i 


natur* of tiM U»u is Mad* in aclm 4ipaiiaaa» «■ thw pirlasi- 
Um TlMwry of Id«M as found in the Wa tat t v mimm can ba 
Idarad to ba a pura ooeltion aad the crlttqna thara pra» 
aanted la baaed en a tharoanrheolng asploratioBf both nagatl'vely 
and poaitlwly, of th« aodiiMMlaB at tha Platonla argnamtatlon. 
If now va add ttet thla Theory of Idaaa, thua devalopad, ia 
llkewlae preaanted and Tiewad aa a total tiltiaata explanatjoa 
of aaaaible reality, aaaaning all the functiona of tha Ariato- 
tallon cauaaa, it appeara that« in orinelple, the firat book of 
tha Watapfayajtea preaenta a ajataBatieally developed pure type 
of Platonic aailaphgwiai* 

The elaborate exploration of the ieipllcatioiaa of a com- 
plete and pure Platonic netaphyaica wMeh ia to be found in the 
•aanentary on tha Wataplqraiea vaa aade poaalble by the ratiwr 
extraordinary circumtanee that, in tlia lii>liliTllra > Ariatotle 
alnoat coRDlately ignorea the aany other o apeete of doctrine 
ahlch can actually be found in tte historical philoao^^ of 
Plato blnaelf . Thua, Ir the SSMKbB^£S* ^^ iaa^ile Ideaa 
alone are called uoon to explain notion and beconinR. Only the 
Plwdo ia referred to| the entire develcpa a nt of anaihar vie* of 
notion in Plato'a erlting ia oadttedf neither the dieenaaian of 
the role of soul in the Phaedrua , nor that of eotlon in the 

Scphiat, nor the elaborate ceanelecy of tha Tiaaeoa r a a oi ^ a B any 

fomal eonaideratlon in the MaJMal— ica. 

«d MM 9; iHit tijc mss^li as .fT »l$ ««aJCq 

-so* 4 1» aiswlv- i Ml^ 1» i- 

Biiat bmatfk md ^ mi iaMa in^ , * 

•eli j^ ml 9hmk tmm 

lo X Cs9i^i«M (Hi/ nt bnuoH «Ki «. on dotdv 

»i^bi mlifktmtst mtiC «4t fi. 

9df yJM •fe:<,^..-^iJ tea «t»lio« •i*J^pa» «-> •<""' f--^rrji.n «-r« ^^oS» 

T>»l -■! ■ 



*■ V»>; i^*»^ -n 


itC IIV ' 


WhaWvwr mqt here bean Aristotle's reason for Ignoring 
ttas •th«r olseisnts In ths eoncrote whole of his forest prsdssss- 
sor's doctrine, the upshot wss tbst bs jyessatsti to the Bsdits- 
tion of 6«int Thonnas « Vbeory of Ideas vnioh sas a coaiplets 
world ezplatiati(m porsly cbvckiosd and dsvaloped trim ths analysis 
of huxaan kmrnledfre* 

Let us now eansiine aore closely the eocact function of 
the Theory of Ideas as irlewsi trom the standpoint of tte eaoses. 

Saint Thoaas explicitly states that Plato aade iiae of 
the aatarial cause and that be allowed for a faetsr in the sen- 
sible world which was f undanentally identical with the oatter 
of Aristotle, at least in po'nt of beim^ a prinary indeter- 
■iaaegr. It was fron this natter that the Tdeas were dividad 

and separated* Hatter senred thus as a distineti^m, if paz*tl<. 
ally explanatory, orincSple of sensibls beinp; but beyond this 
Plato had only tho Ideas thenselves to coBplete ttie explanation. 

For,t^ough Plato is recognised as the first to introduce foraal 

causae, he did no aore than thia^ far ha aada use, in -^-tti- 

tion, of only the two causes, tiie aatarial aad the foraal. 
Saint Tbcaas, on the other hand, required, for coaplete explana- 
tion, not only r^terial and formal but also final, efficient 
and iBpaialsr oansality. 

It would seen, indeed, that the Platoniats provided for 
finality since they postulated a "one belnK" to which they at- 
tributed goodaaaa and aaaaation. The causality which is proper 
to goodness is thst of finality, in as auch as the ftood is the 


— «_ » 

•art mamttn f' ^ l^9t3t nr-' 

^ j_- v.. — .. .. _..-_-r MM tm '.-■■■ ■ v» 

1& WW •inn (Xtal^ Sadi attta^z jf/tinliaixm mmmCT tetsa 
.on MS» or — - — "^ •- — "- -rf $mtt hem mam SMt^f— • * 


object of appetency *nd i», th«r»f«r«, th« •nd to..ard. which 
thiws strl^ or fm. B«t lOato •ttarlbuted cauaallty to tlM 
Ooori not •• to an Mid iUdch .at •ffldant e«M« In ot*r«tlon 
but rath«r a« to a fora In which tMnra nartlelpat* as Mn 
T»artlelpata In th» Maa of Hxiaanlty lt««lf. Conaaqoantly, 
whUo that wMch la Oood la said. In Platonla*, to b« "eaoM,* 
It la not eavM Inaofar aa It la ffood and end. TMa la to aay 
that the Oood la only oar aocldana causa alnce that which la 
Oood Is «Ma« In vlrtua of being the Forra of Ooodnsaej 1.©. 
per aoduM eausaa foraaliB ."^ It wuat ba i aaoahm-ail that this 
tMlfVU proeaads with refco^nca to that Idaa cowamla cgs^sS 
bonorum which was tranapoaad to reality and Is totally con- 
troUad by the via Platonlca . Uiriar these ll«ltatl«iB thara 
can be no reeopnltion of i»roper finality, and foraal causality 
by w^ of participation ■net do duty for it, 

Bfnciont cauaality inast be lntro<iueed at least to ex- 
olaln the ehaajre, the *>tlon and the h^ceming which character- 
ize the Mterlal world, m of the»a, howawr, Plato attaipia* 
to aecount for through the Ideas .^ Ho r«fer«ice is aad* to the 
fmetion of soul or of the Da«lurgej the Ideas oust stand as 
self-sufficient causes. Henee, the cHtique is dlrsetod to •ho»- 
im that the Ideas, precisely because of characteriaties derlwad 
fTCa tha argaasHt on wMch they rest, are unable to ajiplain no- 
tion and «»neratlcn. In fact, the Ideas aro peculiarly uMuitod 
to eoeplaln ■otion, alnce, throu0i the argu^nt froo science, they 

'tt9id»i«a^ at t0«u«« ^tt9i»lll* <^«« listMrr ^rrp> fta d^ «» J«n bMO 

•t ii»M« "iCiM «i noon «s^ #iiit 

«*»! t<MKd»o«f' lie vsel •«}> snJhKf *!« >. ^a al teoO 

. .« A ^ .f c . 

mam «t #««/ ^ ^ "''tJ( •« »mK y^tUm^ t li »U ifn M> ^ - 

•^tnJ'aA-iiati^ (tslHw i eibf tea* ta^Hvm m r!o «i* ortftlcf 

■• anfiTa S9t mtti tt«ir >^ ta w Xkio« is a»i;#aail. 

<-<Mr !itaJ&|SB« or 9i/imta a^e «iA«-i XP"^ ■ ^^ «vntl 


oone«ivMl, first of all, to •xplAln %im rery oppoeit«, !■■». 
ly, atabUltj and iMoblllty.'''^ Martfrnr, if th* Moalble vorld 

la to depend totally on the Ideas as on naiiaaa^ tbe eternal aelf- 

Identical IsKtutability of tbe Ideal world should be reflected In 

a rlfrld and eternal fixation of its effaeta. Tfala, of covrse, 

eoold not oxplaln Botioa and chanj^e but elinlnate thaa* Again, 

agent is individual and particular, a "hoc aliqiilu," vhile 

an Idea is a reified universal and, as a uidiwrMLL, therefore 
cannot be a mover or apent. 

The point of the critic Isa is, therefore, that the Ideas 

cannot be considered, in aity true sense of the word, as effi - 
cient caaaas. If they are put forward as eonpletely explica- 

tive, thagr anst tnresont, aa substitutive tar true efficiency, a 
fonetion which is proper to th«<B« In effect, therefore, tbe 
paaudo-efficlonoy of the Ideas is really within the line of 
fomal causality and mist be designated by the sane fundaoental 
relatioaiehip of the Idea to the particular, that is, by "par- 

flhsn we turn to a consideration of exeaplar causality, 
wa neet a «ere coaplicated argunent and a aore conplicatad 
situation. This ie not siaply a case where the Aristotelian 
argnnent is exposed and developed} the nature of that arpnient 
calls for a special coiiincnt tagr "^alnt Thonas idiich will have 
siimifleance beyond its laaadiate application. 

Aristotle finds that the attribution of exanplarity to 
the Ideaa is baaed on an analory to the operation of a 


&Xww ft 8(iS xotkH .^ t« 4X1 

ffl be^ottTbrt ed bUsvin bSxm XesfrZ idt 'to ^kSJtiMisml iBOl^acM 

BllUkf \b lJsptXM Mil* « «'SKJb>aiJ*VHr bm Xevdlvtlvii; •! It.^*^ v^.,,«„ 

. ,s *» ^RVCMB • vd ioflon 

l9»t£OJ^^ ti t»iKot£9K>3 MOV « #»«W flW 

•cs4 JXbr nst* naitiptn: iniM& ^ iawna g iAfttkrtfs • ttA U£m 


oraftflaaa who jarodueoa in aeeordaie* wlih hla art. The slicnifl- 
cant point of •oamplarlty lias in Ita •3q>laa»tlon of tha nature 
af tiM af feet throaich a reduction of it to a Bisilltada. 01 van, 
than* that the Ideas are aaaaplaray either natural effaeta are 
%hm raault of the operation of soMa agant which foUowa the 
■odal of the Ideae or they v not. If they ere not* then th*a 
introiiuction of eaeeplar Idea* i« uaalesa. If thagr are« then 
«a have a double explanation for natural effeote. Fcr it la 
ohrious that in>oxi3ate natural agents produee effects aceordlng 
to a aiailltude to theaeelves} Soeratea geoeratea a nan aiailar 
to Socraiee. It seena neeeeaary to aake a choice; if the eialll- 
tmtm la dee to aeparated «xe«^>lars« the obvious operation of 
natural agante ie nullified; if the ainilitude la doe to the 

proKliiaie natsral agent, again the poetulation of aeparated ex> 


la at loast unneceseazy. 

The argasMit haa a raari>er of inplicatlono, Enaplarlty 
vould aeen to inply an ai^ent i^ieh operates with relation to ■^, 
Hm aaanirler and produces effaeta resaibling it, Slnee the 
Theory of Idaaa, taken aa a pure r^oeition, providee no anch 
9tmAf laaat of all a eoaadc agent eiich am alght be reqtdred 
for ultieate explamticm, iiTei^ilnrity hare eould have to be a 
nana for a direct relatlonBhip botweeD natural entitiee and the 
Ideaa, That la to aay that the Ideae are to be called exeaplara 
slspXy aid eolelj beoause of the relatianablp ef alBllaritgr 
through partlcifwtion. 

«mC# «#» ^cpdl tt ^—^r-.^ ^ Matt lalnpMgB* ^ a»ihl«»'>r>.v..« 

«1 #f «> '(I 'Kl? '^ • **^ •* 

Sflt*n»«M» •iOMilll* ««uiionq lhta9!9JI X. i«A^ i- 

,. . .^..._, ._„r ■'* 9t €imin>mf m oi 

.-/<&. —A ^^>»^ .^Sb -. 


* '- ^^ • "•t? 

Wi^ las soli £# CM ... .. ^ . :, ^-..^«_ -_^-: ,- — i --- _^:. : 


(kt tbm othor hand, ttm nrlneirls ajrens ugXt albl alalle 
1« tainn to eovar %htt alallitude Ix^tiiven a preodjnta natural 
•ffaet and its affiolent causa in oueh wloo that no additlfmal 
airplana tion of that aladlltude nasd b« aou^ht. Aristotle bin. 
sttlf had no coaaic Intelllflsattt affont oparatini; at a hl^har 
l0W%X of af floleney. The connaction beta c a n ttaa natural cha^a* 
of t)ia sublunary vorld and the umtomd aover and the aoparatad 
thought of thoutrht was naintained by an intamediate set of 
■overs and, indeed, only by a aarlea of InterloekinK local ao* 

New Saint Thooas ia not content aerely to cosnent the 
arguasnt and pasa on. Here, once a«!aln, he breaks off trxn the 
litteral twior of his text to introduce a roeitive detandna<- 
tlon, not this tine a further analyaia of the arsnaant of tte 
text but rather a renarkablo eorreetlTe. He igranta that Aris- 
totle's arguaent daatrasjra the exaanlarity of the separate sub. 
stances aet up by Plato, but he denies that it ndns acalMt the 
uoivarMl «Miq>larlty of Divine kaowlodge. And he prapoaas a 
brief arguBsnt for this poaitloo. Natural aganta "intend" to 
prodaca aiailitadea in their natural effeeta. Thia "intentjo^ 
Bust be mduced to a hiirhar principle iddch i^ldea aaeh tMnir 
to ita end. This principle noat be an intelliirence which knoas 
sad) thing and the relation of all thiniv to the end. And ao 
tlia aiailltijde between natural eauaaa and effects rmst bo ex- 
plained altiaataly by a directive, all-.acd>raeiv« intellect aB« 
not by other aeparated foraa. 

'■'iiflftft* .__ _____ i^mm at 9m»9 it. -^ fift i ____ 

i*irM ^ - - > 

s .ta JlR^^fi'vo(fc> ' Oil i)wf Um 

"'■*#r, • • • *f»t <tS *in* •Jen iti -iMWf JTV '■^'" 

-djf* •* "^^- • . '- ♦ 

^ -. ... . _ - - - - — t »iirtt 5f— *-^^-t 

' ~ ^titk'Mf W mt '- ' ^ -- -trfp •!><>» tttf of 

o« QrA .farf» fldt «># aoffiif^ Iln to r e«l# Imm wittt rfMNi 

-3M tttf 4r«in B#o«3'1«» in* M«timt* LMiriwi iwwN i rf •hbllXf-x.hi ssU 


This personal eontr'^butlon of Saint Thonas has a alg- 
nlfjcanc» out of all prtmortlon to Its terse brevity. Its rea- 
soninr; befjins with the twry natural offlclffncy to which Aris- 
totle rwfers and which Is an essential part of his antl -exenplar 
argOBMint. It sores froif this efficiency and the slsllltudes It 
Inrolvos to finality, throurh finality to a first Intelligenee 
and the Infolveaent of exemplar knowlodpe, Tt, therefore, de- 
pends upon the Interrelationships of different kinds of eaxsal- 
ity; It roco^rnlBes not only a specific difference between the 
caoses but a detonrined pattern of Kutual inrolTenent. And 
throvgh this pattern, the argunsnt bsovss, on the one hand, 
quickly beyond Aristotle tbough retaining an Aristotelian 
pr^miBe and, on the other hand, presents a total phlloeophleal 
alternative to the esBBplarity of Plate, for it argue* neither 
from an analogy with huiaan artistiy near fron the conditions and 
nature of hunan knowledire. f^s we found an erpress Thonlstlc 
set of princlnles in opposition to the initial assuaptlons of 
the via yiatonlca , so here we find a Thoalstlc pattern of 
causes which stand in opposition to the Platonic understanding 
of ultiaate explanation. VThat we hatve been discovering in this 
study of the causes is that. In the "pore" ■staphysics of ths 
Tdeas, all the Aj>lstotellan causes (except the material cause) 
Most be Interpreted to refer to that single direct relationship 
of natinral entitles to their separated rrlnclfles irtiieh is known 
•■ *particlpatl<m." But the clue which Saint Thoaas here gii 

16 ^le-f'jiStTiar.^ ir 'f 

«f^ tmmt 9d eu lib atiUMqv « tC«> ^^R aattixiaoaarv #1 l^i 

si «ao edit CH> tSfWor JRaeirjrtit «f: 

I' ' ' ■ " -T* ■ ».♦- "" nd (fir 

Is % lal^Mf «»d^ <»t Ml^raoqqv «» r lit 1« I^M 

siitf at ^ftivme^lh tmnd m^M on iiuff « > cKtArJ^^fit 1» 

(mamn r^-^ — .^. .^* «g» lie «mM»T 


«• indioat«« that %tm •xplieativ* ralationahip batwaan af faata 
and tbair ultiaate cauaa la hltihly coaplax and mut ba undar- 
atood through apaairically dUtfarent kinda of cauaaLllty, no one 
of wiiich — final, exaaqilary afflciant — is coapletaly and ul- 
tteataly intalllgibla without Utm vthar. Thia point will ba 
farther di^valopad In tha aaxt chapter. 

To return to tha critique of Platos Tha I<teaa ara iaraad 
ajBBtdare, without a c o rra a p onding coaade affielancy or iatalli- 
geaca, aiaiply in Tlrtua of tha relation of participation. Tbla 
ia tha aaoa ralatlonahip that aubaiata batwaan tha aaoaibla 
world and tha Good, a relationship batwaan a particular and a 
aaparatad foni within tha line of formality, cxamplaritjr, thare- 
rera, aithar has no moaning or Esiat be redviead, aa waa finality, 
to an explanation par godtta cawaaa foaraialie , 

Althottffh thia invaatlgation haa ravaalad that Platonic 
azplanaticm can only ba thought of tm apaclficalljr in tha lino 
of foraal cauaality, yet when tha fomal cauaa precisely aa auch 
ia axaaiaad, bare one of tha aoat aarioaa anbiguitlas of Platonian 
appaara. In the 'Atonic arguaent, tha Idea ia pcaitad aa tha 
object of definition and acianoa, and it ia, tharafore, the onto- 
Iflflcal correlate of our knowledge* But, aa we haam aaen, tha 
intrinaic difficulty of the poeltion forcea the Platonist to nake 
tha Idea of natarial thiaga a pure f«m and to naintain that 
natural dafinltiona and aciMHM ara concerned coly with fom, 
not with a caa;>oaita and not with fora including in ita vary 

•lae''"^' "•"---- .»—'■'• ---. -rU«>J:lip» «<* *-'•* M^sslial v 

•lift .floi^i a lo : 1 liwiniv Al xJigtim %*9n% 



ifatfa tti V- ■ ' <»^>^63 iJai^-rcl «i^ a«(to J: imnol ^ 

solnotaX*! ^ » irt9» isc* «1^ lo «» rmd «bMicnt»z« »i 

•dJ «n9oc «7m1 «» as ^<riiB .t; ^tsoo X«9i^X 

, ,_ 1 «o?.- .vjjnn^tfc 

^wnol o» •!£ •ocsiina bos cod *mi 


Intoniglbility a ci«t«raliiMi tbMMth not ladivldualliad uttm-. 
UwxM^ that «fal«h «• know utaMi «• kziov aBtttrial objeeta la a 
pure farm, but the pure f om which ee know Is a aaparatad aub- 
slstent fom. Now, In the jlristotellan and Thoaiatlc rltm, 
tiMit ehlch we know ia tha fonn In the natter aod the ajtolagl- 
cal correlate ia the natorlal thin;* Itself. Thr; unne In Bultls , 
tte JBBHK. ^^^» ^ auoh, exists only in the Intellect and may 
be applied^ eantantvlaa, to the indlTiduals. Tha fOatenlc argu> 
MMt ttea d^hlea the ontoloRlcal correlates I'or natural knowl- 
edge, bat, by insisting that Uie separated fons is what w« truly 
taMv, it casts a shatlow on the Retaphjrslcal structure of the 
■atarlal entity, obscurln); the intrinsic fora and renderinji its 
status In f>elng sad k—wlndji axtnMSlj saMgnous. Thus, the 
aaparatad form tenda to take the place of the intrinsic form so 
tliat, froa this standpoint, we are forced to say that the sepa- 
rated foms are the foras and subatanee of naterial thlnga. 
If this aspect were driven to its lo^^cal conclusion, we would 
have to Bay that the sepajrated foras are the total f oraal ex- 
planation of the indlTlduals (the aaterlal cause, of course, 
MUig * a> l Mr' * ) and the reaami why the latter are what they ara, 
are kncnm am are the subjects of predication* Again, wa aast 
postpone the full consideration of tha aablgultlas hara involved. 

To maHKrlBe then: we ha:«a found tha 'i'faeoiT of Ideaa, 
as purely deterained by the via Platonic a , pi-esented as a total 
and altiaate explanation of sensible reality. Over afaiflst this 


c^^ i • 

n 9t yKml ma ami* •otai « iaM «frafH»li 

oXawoH /j n iMot ervt oatCfta^t e«Ek# ft»n 

Xlin^ r- -—" -^ Mdl to««M(!9fl -^* *-^^ xattfWtaR2 IP* t**' %••*» 

taint on^ %» tfat: ' «wl ftii«stw<9(ra 

•«|M fld^ iadi '^SM •# to9^'k a^ •» t •tii' aim «#jMtf 


^i^fttit^ Xci-n*M to e—" •-- ~ .. a»l «w •y 

Uuew OT ( -to tfcr. 19009 X«axj<oX aiii o^ n*rttb «naMr if- %I 

,»nft ii:wlf ;fiulw a-TA 'niiel «di ipil* naigt «it'^ ^s ^' tmiad 

1«> dtfa «mC^ •«» tan (w 


oat tha Thoaistic pattei*n of axplaziatlon, rvqulrlng 
fenMlly dlBtlnct llnaa — matarjLal, foraal, final, efrielMii 
and a»— plnr — of causal intalligibility. Suparinpoaad on 
this pat torn, the Idsas app«ar oa doing duty for all but tha 
MkWrlal cauae, yat unable to 8U|q>art the distinct intelllgl'- 
biliV of tiie causes and si^inking explanation, tJiereferey to 
the single line of fcsnal causality, and this with all the 
involved aoblguities Iziseparable frar< the peeoliar relationship 
which the Ideas, in virtue of their origin, mist have to the 
particulars azid to aatter. In brief, Plato used but two canses, 
the aaterial and the forsal, vitJiout adequately dealing even 
with the latter. If the Ideas "e^qjlain** sensible beings at all, 
it nust be throtigh that single, peeulior relationsMp between 
Ideas and particulars i^ieh Plato called participation. To this 
participati(« «e will turn our attention in the next chapter. 

Tha "Essentialista" of Platooi— 
Only an understanding of the inherent eesentiallan of 
Platonisn can bring the stu^jr of the foraalieia of Platonic ex- 
planation oad participation to full clarity and onitgr. liodern 
Thooista have given considerable attention to this aspect of 
PLatonisni and with many the distinction between the "essential- 

isM'* of Plato and the true "existentialisB" of ^aiat Thous 

has becoBS a cesBoqpilaee stereotype. The terns theaselves do 

\o moklolSaoam desneiimi oia ie »ai. ~: «b i(CaO 

%• ^osqi* sM* ot Tioiiw»ii*. .^-.-ntmao aemJta .— -^ 


not occur In Saint Thoaas. Vm does not eharact«)rlie Pl«toni«<a 
a* an "•asmitiallSRi* n«r d««« Im «v«r act hia oan doetrlna In 
emitrmt and 0!»roa1tlon nndor tha algn of "eidatantlallaB,** 
Thla Is, i>t eoursa, iinisportant. Tha raal question la nhethar 
aaa^ntlalSan la an Interent ehAracterlatle of rrVtai— aad 
alMra ami in vbat wmy, if at all. Saint Thoaaa pointa to tM.a 

fkm In an •aawitlall.Bw to ba whan raised from t^ level 
of comon aense to that of ohllonofildeal rafleetlon tuma oat 
to Bsan "to be an easenoe" and to be in ita Mfrheat and noblest 
•ansa aaass to aean "to be a imre, selfoidentlcal, etaraal as- 
•«nee«* In eontraat, tha exiatentlallsa of Saint TbcMaa is 
said to define belnf; phUosophlcaUy as that which eocerciaea an 
act of exiatence} being does not exclude eeaence, bat neeea- 
sarlly Includes an act which is not that act which ia f ora, ia 
not eaaenee, but, thonirh not exiamally adttod, la jrat beyead 
aaeen a e , en^lobinir it in the actnalitj of aadlatenea. In thia 
▼lew, the M.fFheat baint; is not a aojo'eaa 9890amm, but a full and 
total act of exiatenea, pore aetuality, Tpewi Kaaa * 

Tha earlier dlacuaalona in thia study have indi««t«49 of 
course, in the conaiatent atraaa on definition, foma and foraal 
•anaallty, a strong eaaantlallntic direction within pure FIm- 
tonisTs. Tet one sdght ask whether an excluaiva eoneam with 
the "esaantlal** aavaet of reality ia In fact Inponad by nrinci - 
plea or ia in Platan&aH aaraly tha noet 


ttt anliiscb : »d «9oh ten * nn w 

"^atlliittofluJ'ftlm* 1» ojvJbi adi^ '••Doff j»c tt ^r..?w ^>^ fkosa innta»o 

f (ft noMsMrp £iM»Y wf .#*• ' -kvo "J© ,«! «l«ff 

ba» aBhiod^Al? fe JTvensdirl oe a^ f<ra '.wt 

iUbff 0l tJ«toq SMMflP tait& cXIa te H iiMV Htim »t htt «<Mrf» 

■ ' ■ ^ '■ ■ -'■ t$Mi 

i^fibZ «f!# «B^1 hMiJfart •nuhr mT o£ r «<R 

^89X<Jba fins hifffnf^ «#f fit i><f ^ Km " ^ if « fNf 99* MMto <4 

fti BHKKl" ^^rttiu: lo ■•>X»£^H»i»lX« «i# ^Htat^iWO ffl "•MOM 
•MOOR i»S ,4KM»»C«n •tel«(« JWI fl»Ob ' ^stx* to fiy» 

•1 ««nD''. Ufcr #tn #«!» ^«o af dolirfv .ti»« nt- ni x^Iim 

" -'X •* »^ ■ - ^ . . ^ ^^g^ ^^ 

baa Lisii m titd ^fiaaMi&fc d«<»«(0a. * J«a al ba^Sv^ i«£<^i mO ^w9tt 
. aa^T iiragT — — -'*» ^ iwr '-^--^ 

laanol hoa manol tooithitlab tw aaa>via to- > «f# it£ ,•61009 

-al*r a^ *""- <i3f#*)«tN> •i&utlef'f vrmht a ,^" -' 

dttm irraano-j a^? ns tartHrf* «»« ^rt|i» arw i»T .mitnol 

- hM^trr x^ b»ac}<iEfl ^ttiH tit nJt x'llsa-r 1o ^a« aaaa" at'i^ 


wt^ of dvffvloplng ItB rrinclolo* or, lnde«l, vaa prlmarMj the 
rMvlt of an historical aceidont. Plato bogan with the »aeratic 
••arch for dofinltlor and naturally appliod hla principle of 
aiadlitulo to definitions with the resultlnR tranaformation of 
^bstraet sssonces into full<4>loiaa actualities. As loxm •• this 
historieal orlfln doadnates Platonlsa, it will Tiaintain its 
Master's preoectinatlon with MMsnoss. ftit Is there anythlnc in- 
trinsic to ths priiK±vi»B wieh Halts their application to the 
pattern of essseeas? Ind«od, one could argue that Platonis* had 
IMnpsd froai Socrates' narrow Interest in definition; it had 
achirvwd its release in positing oreclsaly an Idea of Bein« it- 
self and thas, at least in soas of its historieal forw, had 

arrivod at the sias strnwa rerua virtos as Saint Thowas hinself 

The question, however, is not whether Plato and his fol- 
ps did, as a watter of sisple fact, busy thsaselWM with es. 
nor own wtiether sone actual natonisws asoaped the llni- 
tations imposed by toe excluslTe an intarast in essence. The 
fMStlon hare concerns Platonlsa as a pure position and we are 
Mfelmr whether, in the principles and forwal structure of the 
^* KUtoniea as tmderstood by Sadnt ThoMS, there Is any cofr»»nt 
philosi^hieal reason why the pressures of that position should 
drifa in the direction today described as "easentiallsia." 

This problea could he inresti«»ated in an indirect way; 
that is, by exanining ths astual confrontation, within Saint 


tH TR| sew tboe^i ,to "JNq »♦" ^»l> 1^ ipv 
lo •i^.„ , -J lMiU««i xU- »*» 'S'l^ 

mtk alMintam Htm it «inijM«>n te .':* «Jaiiv> j ... i 

§di A^ ao tt£.9JLIc|<fa t/sdif e>lKlI riajt;i« •» «(i^ «t •IcMlr^ 
,-iMl% ^«k# wqtM MsM V. - , - -r»t lo f 

-Xol nM bos o^s^ i-f 4mtt nJt X ,-> 4Mf? 

-hat! #(f* fMi xntiToStJP mt>% ' aam tnn aostMM 

«eS • ' tti ^ HA ^rJUiuXdJc* a«i# ^ iMMwtipii ^ 

«tt}«Mf Msq • ^ " "" — "? ooiJwMqi 

«rf# le 9«nr3B^a Xarsol^ tow anlnl^^^^^ an^ at «- 

4ii»3oe fm at rtai^ ^li i— >ifT 4nlad -^ h <J9 •• ^ 

hlmAM mtnmei_ iadi %d «3J* j^ mumen Iri* "-'- 

i^Gv >fMrcJU>Al OB «t It it >^ hj:«»-39 t eiftr 


i« wrltlnffB, of M« owi integral doctrine and the tradl> 
tianal poaitiona of the Platomats. .that «e Intend to do bere, 
r, la to look for an explicit clue within the irta na- 
itaelf aa to whether or no an "easentlallan" la a lorlcal 

■waiinn— of It, The temn •eMonilallan" and "exiatentlal- 
iMm," ut haa been pointed out, do not appear in Saint ThcMa* 
and, indewl, there la no erpllrit text in which PUto or the 
Platonlat* are arraigned on this charge. There la, however, mi 
aaalyalay intej^ral to the eonatruetlve study we have toeen nak* 
inff« which opens the way to an answer. To thle analysis, there- 
fgy^ «« BOW return to reflect upon It anew in the light of 
fuller eTldnnoe and of the deaands of the present preblea. 

Me hxm seen that Saint Vhoisas often describes the baafc 
Plataile error aa a conviction that whatever is abstract Isepa- 
rated J In the Intellect Is also abstract lsepars*edj In reality. 
•IMntiiBavemnt etlaic qtiod qulcquld sit abstractum In intellectu, 
•It ahntractun In re."^ This Tarlnclple Saint Thomas has inte- 
grated m various ways Into his pattern of crlti dca. On tte 
9m hand it attaches as a sort of parti ctOariaed aprollcatlon to 
M^ dtl-tate prinsiples of that critloisn, the dsnand for sIbiII- 
Itude, the Identlflcatlor of the wodus exlstcndl ^ re with the 
0gtm tl^Uai^l^tt rM and the nodus exlstendl In lntelleq%> « 
On tbi other hand. It stands to all the particularised trans> 
oosltions of PlatonisB as a (reneralizaV on of their operative 

r » al " ■ ' ■ ^ >• « eif » roOiwttit et «» ^Xm^t ^~-- 
M «-«svs«rori ««tl IT :ir utfttf so teirrats-rct ••«& »#«>' 

•><«*«( ^ ' .'.-.., 4ir,^)9 wRMfl* Jwlae ««I1 n«M flpr«if m m .« 

,u#s " "-£ si (viettitatfi its blvp«ttrp tecrv mMvi J»0%»rnfluv^^.. 
•sMEJt sad ■iitfT ^ajtee »i^ict(.»n<; t *«■« of wi^oa^wfo M« 

aJ# tAr i-J^Jha ^ iiwi-^sq ali ofai «nea« aiJD/fi>v nl: l»c>#j)rx«) 

o4 ao^tsolXqqi ^a«^IaC0o.e^<1aQ "^ ^''M a c -* >3#is #1 feoad mo 

>XbKlft fal i»s«»* tiS ^a»*^iittb tmd* Tm m1^l^t^at^tJM^ %Jartilv (kilt 

ad# i»im aj o^ t&r tuio't tU to {mt^mi*i>^i^*tti: ittit ^•Itott 

,^--'''- -r| Bl t'" '-•--■ '•■ -It ad* Uit _^ -i^ rr,.*-,i ...f,-^- 

•arun* naat^&X^ r>/jna«| eruf jLu aJ^ «te»#a * i*n.«« Mi^' m 

•r.t#6%oqo -xiadi \t> ODllAalXeiaatiBi a aa «& }-i>«off 


Now within th« int«rlacln^ «nd Intaiprftiwl critiqoe of 
thla prlnoiole th«r« is one analyBls, n^ch appears In a nw 
ber of toxtsy in which 3alnt Thonaa raducaa the principle to a 
oonfuaion between two diffei^nt sorts of "aaparatlon." fte have 
already atudied thia analysis frcM the standpoint of what aight 
Isssely be called epieteBological phenoDonology. For tfas two 
•arts of separation in question are those of (1) the intelli - 
gentia indivisibilitm , the operation of the intellect by which 
we underataod the natures or quiddities of things, and {?) the 
intellectus cospenens et divideiw » the operation in which soeie- 
thing is asaerted to be or to be such. Tn our prevloas analy- 
sis ws pointed out that ttM eognitional siB^litude required for 
truth nasd only be verified, and, ae co^^titionol, could only be 
verified in the second type of separation, for only thus is it 
asserted of reality and that it need not l>e verified wtasa the 
sspsratlon is of the first type, and is only in the considera - 
tion of the intellect* This analysis is not swrely a state- 

that Plato Bisrosd the reflective evidence of eognitioo. 
This he undoubtedly did and this is int^RTal to Ms errors**. 
But the bearing of h\ji mistake is iweh broader for by so vis* 
rsading the evldenca, he ellwinated froa the level of philo - 
fiHil9fi^S9Bifi£Si£ that evldencs froa which 
as<alops « 

Far while these two ssparatloas asy be distinguishsd 
as non-assertive axri asssrilve, 5aint Thoaaa points cut that 


- t 9M U) 1© (»«o4» •!« oo^— -" — ^^w %» «««n 

•^ (^ tM» t9;»Ui^ lr> M^ix4»Jur^ w a «ri# iiMi«rMtatf «ne 
*«MD« dafitfir at oof.t . ^w- ^_., ._.. 

-XLaa* miotwtntj <i»o «X .tfDif* wu o# no Ml o« bmtvme* •< ytidJ 

•4 utoo bJ6<«» ,' '- -J M «tMM ,fe»llfeMr«d ^lao Imqm Mint 

4i «l Wit* Xtao lot «» 1 !• «qt' hnoxra uA» ai t»r 
9<ljr n«d« te^li-MW Atf *on 6««n 41 Jts^ Urn . '^o J^t^ 

iMUt^uyii^slb Ml "Xfut 9et:>£w>rt»(|*a am^ writ &l^dT taS. 

fi^i itto •inttm mmotfS ^bJLsS c«v-Jt#iaB*«« bos vrlJirMe*^. ~ . .^ 


trtm • ■•taplQnileal staadpolnt, tl4f1i|Mr an iaportant ralatian- 
■hlp to ttM •truettire of bvliy;. Th« first of these intellectual 
•parAtleoa aawne the mderstanding of quiddities or eaaeaees 
•ad InTolTss an abetrsetian not oolj froa the IndlTiduatins ac- 
cidents and indlTldasl natter of a particular ■aterial entity 
bat frco its aotoality as veil. It is for this reason thst the 
intelllnentla indlviaibiliua is a non-assertive act. On the 
other handy the "eonpoaitlon and division" of the intellect is 
related to the esse rei, to its act of existence. This is to 
99^ ttat a judicial eonpositlon is not aerely an assertion of 
a sisUltods between tte qpeeles of tiio first operation and 
•oae real object; it is a grasp and an assertion of the act of 
that object, its "exercised" esse. 7he upshot of this is that 
there is 8oa»thlng understood, apprehended, intellsetaallj 
grasped in the second of these operations that is not under- 
stood, apprehended, intellectually grasped in the first opera- 
tion. There is, thowfore, m surplus of intelligitallity — of 
a different kind indeed — in the eoig)oeltlo et divisio — onrer 
and abflfve the intelligibility vhich can be extracted froa re- 
all^ in the sla^e apprehension. TMs snrplue is a dynaaic 
grasp of the set of existenae not sbstractly taker but as ex- 
ercised in reality. It is for this rraaam that the ssewi 
operation is and svst he asserti-ve. MetaphyBieally speaking, 
this asans that the slaple aprreheneion cannot foraally grsap 
any being but aost attain only the quiddities of real beings. 


- ■ ' m '$t96 xttt^ *^' ' ~'' ' 

lx,ii^o9LI»tni SNMrfy lot Svtll 'idf .^1«0 le a ydLr t 

M9 OD •^«*^' n » *t ,.-^^ .. . 

ftBs fioiti'.i*qo ^rt±l MCr lo*rts «d> i * « 

1» ^M Mi^ te mitv mm fscnQ * ml #1 f««itc^ 1m« mm» 
»ad* si aiitt Ito J<Mf«qv «1T .Mm "^ ^9* •#! ,^wt<fo ^xf^ 

•i\ / 1o bcI^9•« «U III I 

»$n0«p $wn£i adl at * — '• - -"-*al ,be'~ — *■' 

1l» •« ^IXMti|IIl»lni 'ID atrXqw* • t"^' (<>-^ snEad? .odA^ 

tvto «» olar.'tb £» of ^3 9ds ul •-> fceHul dHM ? b « 

. _,-» ^_. _.-_ - w, ^llid|j»lll»*rt ««* •VTK' -' 

•XflMit>> ' ■! •criq'un mMt .no Qs *£< ^t ol ^ri« 

bmion 9A» tmU awMB^r aW» ^^ •! |t •flllairT at iN»|ys» 
(^ml»(' LMfx Is 9*t^ibl7tmi> mU x^on ffi«#i#s ^aov Jnrf aB**- -, » 


that real b«ing la not graapad, until^ in the JudSBant, tim quid. 
dity la raintagratad into a thing itaalf vhiob, tiaia quallfiedf 
axarciaaa, beyond ite fom, tha act of exlatenee in Tlrtaa of 
ahlcb it la totally Actual and hence a baiag.^^ 

Thla toief raci^lttaatioD of tha Bataptayaical founda- 
tions of tbm tan acta of tba Intalleet vaa naeaaaary to tmkm 
thia point, tiiat Thoniatlc axiatentlalian draaa tha Intelligi- 
lyility which la the gro^md of its flriTnlopnont froa that aurplua 
of understanding which la properly grasped in the :)adgBent. If 
«a Bay uao a phraaa by way of auasary, in Thooistic aataplTalca, 
the aaaa "beinp:" and the understandinR of ''being" are faraally 
dariWBd not from eaaentia but fros tha actus eaaaadi . 

Kow the* point of that aaalyais of Saint Thoeiaa In func- 
tion of lAiich the ]pa*eaent diseuaaion la Boring la that Plato 
aoBfosad tha functional difference between these t«o acta of 
the mind. In tha very conception and understanding of abatract 
eeee n o ea , Plato thought he was alreai^ in ocntact with subaist. 
ing realities, althouf;h what ha was really nndarstaading was 
SSSL *^tjract eeaencea . He thua indeed asaerted actualltiae 
bat the philoao^diical understand! ng of these aetualitiea waa 
completely in teres of e— — » « If thSM being is that which 
is actual, tho understandiBg of being is the understanding of 
— esB c ei that ia, to be la to be an eesenco. What is eolipsad 
in this aetq^fagrsieal short-cut is that surplus of understand! mr 
which ia properly dlacoTerable in the Judgaant. For the equiva- 



'9rf A •Mtod taff icotoft \jvii«;#^^^ ai Jit tfsMv 

• iteMM WH« «S^ Mtl Mtf ♦itiIMM MTfll #Mf t . 

.Mifl^ fii «M»ffT ittisJ^ to «l«v£Mtt tlMU )• Jfflftq IMtt ««M « >' 

..4^«^«tfir» If ^ ^vd at -«ile«"clii b«« «( 

9»tS' ' ■'■9 «« . " '"" ^^ 

tfaliM i«d» mi *rf»<* «Ml# tl .v^; ^ Mti>* bI . 

't iS attics 19 SflKwiA^vwbaar «ti» '-"--i at 

b»KrlXM •! ^ttfir ••«OM««^ » ftrf •» »£ wrf 0# «»! ^lUiy !« 


iMit ftttrlb«Uoa of an aantrtlve laactlon W the first iatol* 
leciual opsrati'm d«priv«a tbe JwiffMuii of aoBr Indap—daot 
Talue and it becomes > therefore^ a sinpls unfolding or con- 
bining of irtut is already known. Tims «• arrive at the in- 
srritable paradox that the aetualiV of being ie asserted but 
that the entire intelligibility of being is concentrated in an 
understanding of essenee while the intelligibility of actuality 
is philosophicaLly oTarlooked. This paradox has been viable 
only because it is possible to assert actuality in a conaon 

way withmit elaborating the philocc^hical understanding 

of actuality. '^T^to, like aqr other aan, knew the diffarenee 
between "to be" and "not to be" and vhen he isseried subsistent 
Ideas he seant then to be actual, but the confttsion in his phi- 
losophical analysis of the evidence prevents an elaboration of 
the philosophical understand! m? of actuality. 

Ths TTOshot of this entire discussion is, therefore, 
tlMt the very principles which Saint Thoaws has dMcrlbed a» 
specific and basic to th« via Plato nlca are seen, in virtue of 
Saint Thonas* analysis, to involve, with philosophical necas- 
sitgr, the understaadlBg of being solely in taras of — a — e e and 
the exclusion of that ]:M[losaphlcal evidence which is neeessary 
to transfom sn essentiallsn Into an existentialiso. It is, 
therefore, no historical acnident that PlatoniSB has taken an 
eaaentiallst dlrtvetion; accordinf^ to Saint Thomas* analysis, 
es^ntialisn is written into its initial charter of principles 

'tatnl Svtit •as at l»^4Qi^ mfffMM fli Itb Am ^itr:f Hi'ic ^&i 

•«eo *K 9aibSiiaflsa$ miftgitm « ^••K>:A«e9d« , iw < n»»d it ham mittif 

(htd iwJht ?;«l«rf "io 9« wit is irm 

HA ul b«»«iiraraao9 •i yttetf t» ^tadljUUte^ mite* ai^ JMt 

^.,.... eg m at xSlLui*9% irt«M« o# •Idteas^ %t #f »a i i«u» < f x£n» 

9att*y»Tt\kh •AS «M)? ,(taar t^Af yfim viii ,c- H« to 

-ilfcr stH f«t W) f8tf>ir»n •!<# larl ,IflL' ^ ¥trRt»B «d aJMl&T 

^X^iSmaiam U »«liHii^ a; Im^Mqt^totMa tit 

M be AMf UBHAd'i' ;taiB£ Hoiltm • Tff ti'**^ Mf^ ^M*^ 

lo «i»i^lr ai i^tnce ana ., _ , jJ'^ ajy fo^ •# »i«e^ fcr» ollit»«<i« 
-BOOM liMilifeiDnoItb t H*?* ,«wrX3'W«J^ oi «B.firit£Knc ■ 

VT -. L. ai flbirfv Moofalv* Xasliiqpfao _ i# lie iiDiaBl«x« Mi^ 


uni for It to ceasQ to be an •s>«ntialJ8« would b« to c«aae to 
be •pecifically Itaelf, 

«7 et 


•# MUM9 •# a^f (xJtoov att^!>flti»»e« m ••^ «l »auB*n «# It ^1 tm 

,.'' ' •'. .'' . ' » 

!% •■ ' »• 


t.' ' ■<:• ■••• * fi'jM i»' 

Tt ia not the pumosa of this ehnptar to make a tharouf?h 

study of th» Um "partloipatlon" or of all the thMrLaa to 
which this BHM kam tta attaehed. The task hara uadertaksa is 

■ore Halted; «e Intend to investigate participation only 
iaaofar as it namaa ths fuadMMAtaX ralatlooahlp betMan sensi- 
ble reality and the separated principles or causae. «-.ben Uiis 
relationship is Tiewed against a Ctvistian baekgroond it ia saaa 
to be philosophicalljr and functionally anaXegous to the relation - 
ship between ereaturas aad God, The relationship, therefore, ia 
to latlaate cause whet' er of one perfection !«•£• "taaaan nature" j 
or of all perfection. Vurwnm r, In accordance with the line* of 
this study, wt wish to exaHine it priaarlly aa it appears within 
the pure deduction of the via Platonira in contrast to the viaw 
^ Salat TluMnas. 

Siaea, th<«n, participate on naaes the ralationship be- 
tween the particulars or "matter' and the separated for«s, we 
have already determined son* of its characteristics. 

Ths relationship, aa we have aeon, ia a direct and an 
iasedlate one, for the fonaalltor of the particular depends 



ITT flsniia 

tbvttnadt u «!«■ e# -itt^«).tdA mlsit lo • ■o n ' i q cdi Acta at ^I 

fti^ nadV ••• to soLqlanl^ t>»>h<'s«qD« arit bo* {fi£»at sltf 

^ #1 bi. — „-^Mi mJJutatD m imita^m bmmlbr •! qMmaoiiidjn 

-nobfmjjn Mtf otf saoj^Xonu \XIaoo lineal bix» xl 
«i fVtolrrod;^ ^q (xduwl^Alvx «dT •fcoO bos r4nr>^asii» aaasiatf qirCa 

l"o^-~ ^^i" all-'i «i»li3 ^ .—^ l4> i»>i^«te mutAii JSju ot 

afiUiM nsaqtiA It us KlbrjAl'm^ it tntmax* t>i ttalw mt ^rba^ mlds 
wtr M(i ed . . — .. -r^iaoJaCS mir srfat 1» <iOi. ,. — ^ _., 

.ad ert'iwoiifilvi ari: nal^maiubi'mQ ^amdt ,aDBl8 

•__ ^_ .. .,, : _jjXuaJL#*_., „.- .__ 

•acJtJBlvlt»a-is<(9 all la aeaoa batthnr*' 
OA boB ^oaotb a al •naoft arad aa aa ,aJbrlai 7 



directly upon the corr«8P-.ndlaglliHi> Van la majx. Is iummq tmi 

eallad man, reeel'wa the predication ■an, bvMMae of the aepa- 

rate nan, the howo per a; The foraality vlthin the particu- 
lar — whatever Its ontolo^leal statiis may be — owes Ite rom- 
iBg-lcito<4}oing and Ita ezlatenea as sueh directly to the Idea. 
There is no Bediation of true secondary eaases witMn the sensl- 
bli> world; the only eansss — truly active and efficient — 
within that world are einply disposing causes, relating to the 
resulting form very mich as the artlTlty of t»arants relates to 
the soul of the child. This Is true not only of physical, 

natural entitles but of knowlcdtre itself) sense Is at nnst a 

U ^ 

disposlaff MOSS and the s^ent Intellect Is dispensed vith.'^ 

There is no reduction of true secondary causes to a prlaary 
cause, as in the thoaf^t ot 8a:int Tho«as, nor are the Ideas 
theiRselTas reduced to the esusality of td.g)ier Ideas* Each Idea 
Is a prlnary iigicedlate and exclusive cause with regard to its 
own proper foraality* 

Moreover, the relationship, despite Its auM pal ties, is, 
la a sense, a vary slrsple one* Ve have seen that, when nreoerly 
controlled by the principles of the via Platoniea , It is neces- 
sarily reatrieted to the line of foraality. The cewoler rela- 
tionships set up in the Thonlstic nattem of fsmally diverse 
causes is absent. In It, efficiency is set out through finality, 
exsnolarity Is oltlaately Mediated, in a ssnss, by both floallty 
and efficiency and, indeed, finality Itself has no aeanlng with- 


' at ftVM Bl cuff .mM sflfba^v-tvmio* crtt oiKrii xl^wnth 


-sM-'i at? ' — «rf r "-*- •'^-^-- ^ rio aj^f ivT^Aachr «- isX 

•# MhfAivf n#n«'ucr ^ VJ^^-^^s mU m iHfffl T*iRr in^iTi sftMJCswn 

•labl ftdi •« wa ,auw£il .faitut to Mgfmiii t6$ ttl 
Bmtil tell .iumM ju> «44^ o^ bi»^>ufiG': . 

. & ^x ■.^. 

i^«HMjeil4 oaAv «^mI* mm% eir«tf «flr ••n» aXqeia ^zav » «»^-^^ * a/( 
.rftJhr -saJbaaca «w «Ki "^te**! ^tlaaft ,boebnl , ,-^ . ..-. 


out tit* •xlstenca of true efficioncy. Thus the fom which <!•- 
torslnee an indlvlciual to ita genua and apaeiea is not alsqply 
aad dlrectljr dependent upon the eaaenee of Ooo* «e anat under > 
atand the alHilitude vMch is deaanded in exsaplarity through 
efficiency and finality. Ml of thJs eonplexity is niaalng in 
the Platonic relationahip. iheUier coosldered aa effect, aa 
aivllitude, aa dependent, aa good, the particular is aiapljr and 
directly related to the Idea* 

Participatl<», therefore, aoat be conceived aa an Inme- 
dlate, direct relationaMp ivithin the order of foraallty. Can 
it, honever, be eharaeterised aore closely? Saint Thoaaa has 
few texts dealing directly vith this relationship in Itaelf and 
<^ua Platonic, and It nuat, in general, be defined fay Indirection 
and inference. Boeever, ^ivaral te^xta are directly illuxinating. 

The central critical text of the Sentences coneentary 

proTldea a neat parallel which displays the relationship in 

function of its orli;in. The error irss tliere said to rest on 

the principle) "quaecuaooe [«real entitles j inveniuntur con- 
iMMdre [•relatlonsbipj in allqua intent'^one Iniellecta i,aane 
definition or predicate j voluerunt ouod ca«mmiearent [ •rela- 
tionship j in una re i«one real entity j." The transfomatioB of 
^^ ^"^^ intenti o :' nto i»a ree involvcta the concurrent transpo- 
sition of the relatlonahip of entlt^e8-to»a-predlcate into an 
ontoloeical relationship of thing-to-thing. Both the unltaa 
and the co—unitae are reified. Iforeover, precisely the 


ai sn^e^i" ax ^ina 1» XXA •< : bm t^«i»i:l^ 

bir- ' — *a at nte„w;.A.. **«.. a^ «tia«» m ,#1^,^.; ■».,%»-. « tv— •-';-•- 

bna Uaa^f a^ -; t«Iai alcUr {trte "^^JntrLtto gaJtiJM^ aixai «•% 

noMoavltei v i;^ uab atf ^Xaiaasa at (iaaa il iaa «»l«aitaX>l j^ 

. fld« la /z»J iaaltt-sa Ca^om «mIT 

«i f^...... ..^.»Xn «!# avBX!l«H> dt»luim InXLu,^, -^wa • to ^^ 

no tmen oJ btaa v^edi aar foatA atfT .nl^iv> e#i to aol^noal 

aaa»i a#«-^K<.^><i^ mm>x#imIb1 atfp. «» -^ ^^^.-^.^^.^^^ ^ . . 

-*Xat«l ^.^rcsjtiiisaaDO i»ap .tc -^ ioiaoibai'? 

lo a»iJ's«?ol .ri^n^ t>dT *.iv#iJin9 lo»r soo*] at snei ai i^i3de^!»l^ 

->.,-_, ^ ^.:......™._ .._ -.vioral w_^ ;;_. i.52S «** 

«g ^l«tf adi ii^O' - )o 9 

art* X£»aiMrtq ,- .-.^' .Aailr: ._- , - _ 



relationship involved in pradlMitlan is far<«tll]r mtAd to he so 
reifledt "... at siBlllter ppxim noeretaa vt Plato eont hono qvod 
•It unuii how) |)*?r eaoentla-n i«n>>lfl«d intentioj fjul <J» owdHns 
pracdicatur .'* Tt la ttia bq«o par ae that *ni8t ba eairl to be 
of "tWa Plan," 
Tto altMition can be dlagruwud thmi 






Thua, consiatently with Platonic principles^ the rela- 
tionship between the Bonalbile particulara and the Ideas is pat» 
temed on a copnitlonal or Inrt.entl onul relsticm and oust be 
underatood in terrw of Ita origin, let, the fact of the trans - 
position has now placed that relation wholly in the order of 
nature and we are now required to think an intentional relation- 
ahip as though it were ontolo^lcal. 

Let ua reflect upon this sltuat'on in the light of what 
has prewlously been said concerning the aoiremet^t of the via ^la - 
tonlca and the resulting nature of the Ideas. The main drive 
of the arpoBant has been to set op the separation] each idsa la 

"till etf INf hi»% «1 •t - 

|:-.^i_J. :u ^ fetJMi»nf ft»Rl«i«»^ nkfeSn»«6^ «-.• <Mm iH^tH 

i &iAS bimm(T0ib erf a«9 neJMMittc (Hit 

OTtTb .t .K To IT' 


an entity eo'-yirate fpcm both lnw»wl*»dr9 «nd the T»«rt1< 
th» ■f> T«t «d idsa i« d ^ t ^ rg diwd as a doulil* for th» eone«?t «nd 
<Mrrl«fl with It into reality not only tho content of th« e o ncop t 
but all it* tMrial^ties ftnA relatianshird. Now, in knavledpo, it 
l0 rwally the Tyr-vA thtnir in tmnslbla reality wi^ch la tha onio- 
lo<»ical eormlate of tha concept. Thia waa nrac^aaly danlaf) In 
the firat •uo-^nt of the 'T.ntonic ariniwent; tho sensible thlnr 
eotild not b(% tha eorralata of the knovladf^i this naa tha aoti'va 
rf tha aaparation. 

Aoeordlnp to Saint ThoMaa, vhan «a Vnoa cMterial thin^, 
tKaugh »• fk> 90 by naana of an intelll^bla epeeiae, it la tha 
■aterial thintr that «e knoa and ita fonsality that is anbodlad 
in tha apedaa. Aa lon«r aa thla relationship la one of kno«rl-> 
mitgbf l,a. intantional* aa can eay» ixxladd, that it la tha tm- 
daratooH nature that ia T»*^icatad of tha individual, realised 
in it and in s aenaa identified with it. Whan, i xa i amn ', this 
iTHJwledfa ia traaapoaed into a aaparatad ont^Logical atatua, 
in a senaa^ it« real ob.jeet, tha famality of tha t^imr itaolf, 
ia seTMuratctdf and so wa can apeak of tha Idea, noi. only as be- 
im; the nrlnary rihiect of knowledfre, known rrlno at per aa, 
bat also aa balnt* tha wary apaeias, fom, aasanea of tha thln^ 
itaalf in a atata of separation. If thie aao a ratien is 

pi»had, 48 Ariatotla at tlsaa doas, ^atonie participation is 
to b aaoaa a pure aoctri naaeisn. Tt is thla dlractien 

of natoniaa whieb Saint Thonaa d«««l«pa in tha 1> Varitata 

il ,ef aJt |No4f .& /IS (wl^'£i( .«« •#! ilii Jotf 

vrlim Qtt^ saw sfdi t^ihelwytri uM \i ••taXmott tMll «tf #00 l>Iiu«» 
«fi ml ft ,Ml^»oqti «i ., %o tr <Ki ftt> •*• fljtu»rii 

kvl2>o<ia» «1 ^mi ^ttMnmt nii btm mom vihU D 

-MV art* si il f«l> ^h— hal ,x*ia nao wr ^lAno f Inofrrl •»,! «o8r>o 

«aariita Lmo' b^aruxiftm « oinf > ft mt mftbulmcml 


-" - Mat»7ws 0JM# tl 



and fofBlat— in tba l uwoii roMlalng ptortMmt "onal* mmt bona for- 

■alltar bonltato prlaa non sieut forma eonitiaDta aod alcui foraa 

Mpamta." In alla«iim that aoparatlon prrventa th« Idoas froa 

functlonlnir as nrlnciplas of ktiowlod^e of aonaibl* thinga, Aris- 
totle rovoala another diraction vrltbia tha Platonic altuation. 
For vhat la in tha thing that woulid .luatliy our aagrlng that by 
knowinfT tha Idaaa aa know aanaihle raalltioa? Tba Arlatotelian 
orguaant, rapaatad and approrad by l>alnt Ttaortaa, la vary claar. 
Xf tha aaparation la raally naintaliBd, tlian to knoa tha Idaaa la 
In no sense to know tfaa thlnga; if the diatinotion ie not naln- 
talMd, then tha theory of aaparatad Idaaa anat ba aibaadaoad* 
This reata flraly on tba nmumtmmAtiag ontology of oombob aaoaa, 
of Arlatotelian awdietantiallaa and nraaiatie axiatantlalisa. IHit 
now Plato hac proooaad that the apeciaa ware p r a a a nt to tha aanal - 
bllla throoi^h participation which aaa tha way be tbouflbt tba ape - 

i mta could be eaosaa. Thla p.irticipatlon would have to ba under- 
atood In thla way: "Juat aa ae woul«i imdaratand that white itaelf 
exl8tli« 2*r 33L» ^" ^^ ^^ ^^'^ * aeparated white, la nixed jper- 

i||ggMj altb the white In a aubject and that irtiiteaaas la par- 
ticipated, ao also we would aay that the nan who ia separated is 

aijcad with thla Llndlvidualj nan who ia cuwiposad of natter and 

tba apeoific nature which he Lthe Indlviauali participatea." 

Hare, tha interpretation would aeaa to reault in a. certain onto- 

lerlcal invaalon of tha particulars by tfaa aepjixated Iiieaa, not 

aMaln by way of efficiency or finality or eaaaplarlty but as 

fomal eaaaee which would be the ontolrxriral ground for the 

"1^ M»d Utm nlam* tMMfft'^ m^'' aM <t 9^sXmcwA tm 

junol s.i H aiaouJtano s^sao'i ivoia am. mJhR} r 

Urn ftl (Mt#«Uit»ll> fldt Vt twsaiM «f^ 

• jfc *. . ij. 

^^, «d ^av ai««l>r t ^ ^o ^f M » it «4i ««t^ , 

-sal b^Kte «1 ,*tM« I. mt. vfwmm 4i It mm ^ 

ai . -)« «Jt oftiv oca fl^ iadi ^gu b£MV «r «tt£> om ^tmimqintS 

ba» -tot^m "io bMoqooo a± odw q«m LXaA><ri!lwii aJtiif a^tw taxtm 

.too «r •« aetJ -vbT 7 nefaavnl laal^ieX 

orti •'«>,{ bfURyri) JCa^tj^ieloino mdi arf bfcww (tot- :oi 


>1 bllia existiae» being sveh «a Uwy ar« and beirtR so 
of and spolMB •/ In pr«dleation. But, vhlla tte ••parstion it- 
•elf would then I'ttcaae riffue Md aabignouii, it would etill tm 
poMlble to strasB tbm ontolocicai unitjr of tte foraalltj which, 
aa •« haTa soen, was i^ie ontolo«rloal eorralata of tha unity — 
in pradicatioBf In naturo and in universAliV "•' of the concept. 
And if the unitj ware saintainad, wa would hara to aay tbat tht 
for* •» whether eonaidarad aa aaparatad or as vaguelj "cdbBtd** 
with ttia particulars •>• was only ono} that in each eas« it was — 
ontolo^cally -« the nam fenB. It is this direction of Platonir 
presaure that Saint T}}eaaa streaaee in the Cowantyia siiper Soi: - 
JgglKJgi ''non eat aaceeaariua qiiod si in aniaa est natura intal- 
laotualia at in I-bq, quod ait eaden intelleetualitas utriuaqao 
per aeaentias, per eaadaa esaeDtiaa utrunue (ticatur ens." It 
ahwild be neted that, when, as in thia text, tho Platonic 
is transposed into a Thriatian fra^iework, this Platonic presi 
a pressure towards Paatheian. 5aJ.nt Thoaas finds the 
direction in the Platonislnt; interpretation of such auctori - 

"Farticiaatione divinaa bonitaiia aniaa et ommm alias 

16 17 

res sunt et sunt bonae" and "Ipse Deua est esse aociatentibus.'' 

Tlw upshot of this alsoussion is, therefors, that the 

Platonic separation and portiolpation, when luiderstooo in the 

light of their proper philosophical prineiples, result in cer- 

tain insoluble teasiens which turn veiy largely cm the doubtful 

ontoloftical status of the intrinaie fora. It will be 


"htxfx^* xl*«'?«0^ ■•■■•'. ■••••. <l •• *»1 

«» IMV #1 ••«» rfoJia Af* #«il f «HM ^Jtto mem m^ t ^ miU Aite 

»ffiW«r» *» mtf90tnt vrm mr re .r- ^n •<»— •tiir-^ '^— 

-fti^t trm^aa i»* aaIim ui tm bmap MuJKsiUHMaa 4 ma Aoa* tj;; 

-^ 4er«JMttt«JR KftW t#"^ ^ a«»l*«lTrCa» aiii* •*©■•«••«> ui 

* **.( -» M»« See mafi •eql*' hns "«BaMf itttfR ita Ja»« asm 

■ ■ - - . ..' ' :a .. • 


that tlM pr— ■p po e ltlooa of Platonisn ~ tha ihaory of flox — 
panaelaoV callad in quaatloa tha ontdLof^eal raality of tha 
toFmml dataralaetiona of Mitaarlal balngi. Tha natonin Ummj 
raquiraa that «« nalntnia that the Idaa (1) la traHj aaparaiad 
in baiw;» (?) la truly ona, (3) la tha raal fairaal eanaa of tha 
^artlculai^, (L) la truly rnlatad to tharr aa a eaaacf a iprlnel- 
pla, a Jvatlfleatlcn of knaaOLadira, of vradicati on and of balnff. 
IT tba aaparatioit la etraaaad, the theory tanda taaarda pure ax- 
trlx i aa ai— I If tha Invaalcn of the particulara la atraaaad, tha 
unity of the fam drlvea towunda antitatl-va vtiflB and panthalaa, 
Thaaa aataiguitiaa and tmaioBa are ttaaa liyiaraat la tha pare 
T ha a ty of Ideaa. Aa «a bayn WMHy SalBt ThoaaM hlwMlf recof- 
nlsaa tha«a different preaauraa and their logical eoneluaioaa. 

Thara la, howrar, an axpMliaafc «hi«h laaaena tha orii^rl- 
aal taoaiona and, to aoaa otent, elarlflea the atatua of tha 
fona intriaalc to the particulars. If the fom la reatored to 
the parti culara aa an ontolofdLcal reality dlatinct Aran bet re- 
aaaiillnK tha aenaratad idea, the lanediacy of tha pRrtiel<^^tion 
relation and ita fonwl character can b« scaeahat wore easily 
aAlntalnad, without the obvloua conflicta that arlae In the vrev^ 
<MB deteminations. Aa a satter of ftaet Saint ThoHaa aore often 
i^iMlai of FOatonisB in this faahlon, infloanead by tha interT>r«- 
tationa of Saint Aururtine, Baathiua, Plwf tii and othara. In 
thia caae there ia an ontolo^lcal reality — the partlcl patio , 
or f pTMt parti cipeta — > in tha partleulara, yet tha relation to 

the aaparated Idea r«nina as iaaediate aa before.^^ 

^■*i«■I»50B xlaTJ* «t (f ) ''-am «w 

««•«•« llMfslrf M«od7 Jlii«8 ,a«M o«Mf iMr •! ••MM lb cmdT 
•itfio^ttrjCanvd 4Ni(^ -• 

«U 1» ••*•«• adi Mil j!ui» (iec. .. ^j^b •# «i3W aoDtaokt iM 

•J» bero^m^n at «rt >f .•v~I»ol<^aRfer •At ©♦ r/ " 

-<rt #o»f fxy^ 6 T#fXc«l -jlfio rttt aft •fltslnol^rto^ pf'* 

ooflB a'M aomfT dnlsti #*iA 1& .^ :: M aA »«i»M: 

«6 - art* X"*^!^ "^-if ,M>Mii1 tMI m ' ' ' ' 

ffl ««tf i ,9f!Wa»t)3A ttiH>^ "So 

cJ ■"■In «P" " "' ■ ifiM^Xt "^ : **► 



kB «u liidle«t«d In th« last chapter, itfian «e turn to the 
II— litl laltgM to pMMt&jpaMon, nmmlj, the rolatlwMhip be. 
tfooen erMit«r«s and Hod, so often deelfaatod in Saint ThoRae by 

the aane tore, w? find the exDlaretlon of the relatfonoMLp to 

reat la the eoaplex patteni ef the four eaaaea. The altuatian 

kete la far aare cotiplex. Theraforei We aoat thlak af Oed, in- 

dead, aa the ultlnata axanplar cauae of all thinrra. Bat the re- 
lationship la MKUaAad by iaiellifrenee vhieh la identleal «ith 
Rla asaencf*. Ftirther, the a x a apl arity ifmliea effleieot eanaali- 
ty, for the raaw rtl aaga of ereaturea to (UnA dependa upon the of- 
fiateoit aetioR of ^e Creator v^ho, as aiienty produeea affaeta 
reaadhllngf tho«{i>lt defieiently, Hiaaelf anr3, aa IntQlllrent and 
free ageoft* atrte throutrh knawled<^ and the esoBeplarity of knowl- 
edge (Itaelf irednelblo as resemblance ar^^ ns belnp to the Dl^as 
Eaaenee) aa well aa with the full Import of Hnallty, For Hod 
acts with detorM nation of ends, and finality rvmm throuph the 
wtaale af Uis ^irtj-vliy, orderlnf: eeans to ends and all things te 
Hlaself. Itaa nv w uT f this conploxlty of id.tlBate eausalltj la 
coaipatible with ard does not exelada aeeonrfar:.' rauaes. On the 
contrary, the reality ox tt^e iinite world involvea the reality 
of finite a^nta aa aaeh aad of Intrlnaie fonul cauaea, deter- 
■Inin? creatnrea to belnir aa veil as to action. 

New, aa haa already been poiated out, r<»rtfiln tradi- 
tional exnreeeloee wsre aaibieuona In theaaelvia and open to fn- 
tarpretatlaa In different dlrQetlona. S«ah for exsMple, bonoa 

^ iwawrf'l iata& -nt fceJat f ft'ab fi«#\» •« «bofiiin» wratdsMnft 
W " "n «(# lo m^ ' « a** ftsstt ft«r ,' 

•^i fttoi^ >i itet^ #«» vf s.» at igcftiifaMI «Wffl.«ftl tit 

-«« «dt «tf9 ««?«tM> lia ^ •aiM* n ' *?r« iif# in ^tf^ 

-.!• «d# ODQif *> ImQ •# o '» !• • V wrCt 'k/\ i^ 

&ML it— h r,tl>#ni: M «aBft 1 . _ (tfk(«^ «4iaii. 

-XvwDl la '<» ftM tes «v' " 

lM« ^1 *'«lli«ai !■ ;No«Bt: XXvl «l« Ottm te XXm «■ (« _ __ 

iyx sBl^ anrXermi nC*K» Wiar^ art* \a> xfUmtm «r{4 
«wJ«ti t sol alaair«4s^ lo Ian ctatfs a* .. Is 

1 V..T-' ■• 


OBinlMi ; cmnJM bona n%ytielTmnt bcnltot— 
aalat TteoMM hlasalf polatoi oat — and tM» In a. eon- 
text psrallal to the b«Blc orj tlcal taact of tto ammtrntmry on 
ttaB S<mtancrg — that a faloo w«tl«nit«idlnf of ottch t* xts itiay 
lead, luimadp to mitIoimi orror — t« panthelro, for nxaoplo, as 
inJieatod dww. In t«> dlfforant taorto wo find hln, thorafcrc, 
lajlm <••■» certain rales for the propor InUrprotoHoo of ouch 
Uxta. Mm, the ioportant point U that both theoo v^^x^lataej 
t^xta procoed exactly within the pattern of tho oonooOf both In- 
sist cm the reality of ■econdary foraal causao and on tlie eoe^ 
pleadtj of the r«lati«Miehip to -■ . The texts are liaportant 
to bo qooted In fuLli 

RssptBdoo diooirti«9 quod Deuo nan potest babexis allquas 
relatlooea ad noe, nisi per wsdua prlncipii. C« awtee can- 
SM slnt (|«aAwir» li»« ■on o*t owsa ■aterlalls nastMf sod 
so habet ad noo In rati one efflelontis ©t flnla et fomae 
eoDKaplorls, nan wtosi In ratlone fcnrKao liAaoroiitla • C«Misi- 
danadcai est Ijritur in nocdnibus divlnlfi, quod cMda ilia 
,nrtni qMS ln>ortsnt ratioB«» princioll nor nodua efflclen- 
tis TOl finis reclplTmt additionea dlctorua prononiZBm, ai- 
eofc dielsist Cvoator nester ot bonun nootna. E» aokoa quao 
dlcuntar per nodun forme inhaorentis, non reeipinnt die to- 
ns iwonoidm additioesM} et tails sunt bo^m ohhU divlna, 
quae In abstracto sifmiflcantur, quao onnla slgnlfi cantor 
per aedBB forms, ut essentia, bonltas et fanjxwsodi. Undo 
In tallbas nor. notest fieri addltlo, >'on enin poesOT dieere, 
quod Boca sit esMotia nostra, vol substsotla, ^>ol allquld 
iMJosBodl. Tmwb In iatie noninibus conslderandus est qul- 
dsB ordo. Oela qnasdas horun ahstraetflTus lapertant ratlo- 
MB princiMl effldenUs et exoB^Oarls, ut aaplentla et 
borttss ot fauja»ndi, jo—io fit aMltio dlctorsB rrenoal- 
nnn, ut cub diciaos, Peus est sariontia nostra canoalitor, 
par BodM qso dieitv spos nostnix quia por ejus saplentian 
effleltnr in nobis ssplontia exsnplata a sua sapientia^^per 
tfom sarlentes soms fonMUtor. Q BS sdsw saUa Btti iJipor- 
tant ratLoosa princlpll, nisi forte ejcew larls, et talibus 
It fieri dicta addltlo. Son enia conouetua eat 


■.m\ j^mix ^^9Mmi-..j^- 

"Ok ^91^^ ^ %i «»**«q ^ _ 

. _ - ».k. L , - .Jtf 

I ■> 

teup 4t al 

. ^ & . ^ 

9 «i*1 


dloif qnod D*us sit •sacntla nostra, val mdMl^ntla nostra. 
Taa»n atlan quandoquo Istla noninibus fit tails additio 
priip««r InMtBdiaMi priasliili •maflarimt aicut Dicauslos 
dicit, iv cap. Cael. hier., quod esse osniUR est siqseresse 
dsltatls) llest ImJswsndi locutlaoss mtglm sint ■urn— ilss 
qusa sztsndsndao.20 

Hespondeo dlcenduM, quod loqusndo da attrlbutls dlTl- 
wiMt stt<nrtsnds sst aMrlkoisnai miio qsos, qui* dlvnrss 
est diyersorus, Idso allquld attz>lbultur uni qviod non at- 
irlbultur alterl, qunvls litis slat tas rss} et lads sst 
quod bonita* dleltur causa bojioro*, et vita causa 
Tivnitlm; st sic de sills. SI srtso acclfAsMis dlversss 
attributoruB rationoa, Inveniuntur aliqua habere cotapara- 
tlcnsB nen taataa ad habsntss, sed stisn ad aliqsld slsat 
■d dbjsetssi, «t potsotla, et volimtas, st scientla. Qaas- 
dsBi SMtsa ttd InbMtsm tsuisai, ut vita, bonitss et taajus* 
■sdl. Bt hase sania luteal vaaom modaa causslitatis eoaHUo 
■Mi sdllost psr MBdaa sffielsntis eoossplarist vt dlelBC8» 
qMd a prlBO bono sunt osnla bona, ot a prino vlTsnte 
osBiia Tlvsntia.^^ 

These rules of interpretatioo Saint TboBas biaself cqr« 

slstsntly followed. V bavs sson, for sxarple, that Ute position 

auctoritaa adaptation of ths Platonic asssrtion of a Rrlawra b<»a'B 

placed thla poeltlo solidly on the basis of the cwses and 

stresssd ths eadstenee of an intrinsie f orBality. Ihaassv tkm 

question of InterprstatiMi is raised, God is explained to be the 

tern of participatioa as a princlptw ef fie ions 


prineipua finale , efflci«ms, e. ■• — 

Ob this point, the handling of ths auctoritates of Saint 
Augustine is aost iUusinating. Saint Thoaas reeogniaed a Pla« 

tonic inflxience ]n oaint Augnstine but lioited this influence 

by Saint Anf^natiBs's aeceptanee of the rule of Paith. Tfaoa a 

first rule of interpretation sasKpsd, anslyt ^^ priaary intsn- 
tion, a3jM9« awoasd la ths oaas of ths t^sncti , of 



ta •♦> 



^ t 


-noo IXomlil aaas^'T ^nJtAcl flol.?ii. 

at te i»firt 

'L.. ,. ,^i : «..^4 . r. 

^^ 'v .^rjL.-.A^I.^ 


-*sr. • fee 

^ .i JUOK V < .<. 

..W«^>. *.^. i<. .. ^ >f 

-> -U-»*. - . . =/. J ^ K^ 

^ ^ O* 

1 1» wnmi 


-i# te 

»» mk 

r S- r :f'r»l evi-'Vf 

' %tM% 

■ V»'<fc i**^ 

,^jfcgBie tait 10 



according t« ths Iruth of iievolat on. In 8«aa easss Um bod- 
Platonle Intorpratation is JuBiified iQr «a j ppoa l to t]M adap- 
tl-ve or repartorial oharaoWr of tte AugUBtlaian Wxti **uiitur 
«plalanibtia Platonts* non — ■rimlo sod roe^.tancio." la 

othar oases » l io w TBr, Salat Tbenas raeoenisos th« presonca of 
Platonic laafMia or evan of Platonic prlnclplos. In tha ">■ 
?art.trta» tha f«aLlearlag objaetion is praaantads 

nraatarea, Augastlnaa dicit, vni da Trirdtaiei 
ast hoe, at bonoai iUndi tolle hoc ct lUiid, at vide ipaua 
baanay el potaa; Ita Oaua fldrtiia nan alio bano booMit saAi . 
boRua onnis bcmi. Sed ipso bono quod ost comis bond bonun, 
aaola ilAiMmwi bona* irgo divina bonitata, da qua loquitur. 

La dlcuntur bona, ^7 

QbriaaBl/y thia objaetion laaras the Intarpratation undataraiaad 


as bataaen tha Platonic thaofy and ciaiat Thoaar* oan #iieh ara 
in ttaa ccarpius of tha article in sharp witual eoatrast. 

Tb» —SI mi to tha objection ba(;ltta 

Ad tartina dieandua qood Au/-u8tinus in aultis aplaic 
nataaia saqoitary qaaatOB fieri potest seeunduc fidel Teri- 
taten; et idee verba sua sic sunt intellif;«nda. . . . 

"Ahat sort of an intellectus wjuld we now exrject? If the 

Platonic background is to be used as a gpulde, surely the Platonic 

theory ;}u8t piven so clearly in the corpus shotild detersdne the 

aaanlJV3. Tiut this 5s not the line Sajnt Thooas takes. Go the 

contrar;/, it \% tin ei^anation which ho has Just set cnvr 

against the Platordc interpratat^ on that now follows: 

,,, et tdeo vearba sua sic sunt intelligenda, ut Inaa dlvlna 
banltaa dieatur eaaa baaiai aaida booty in qiuantaa aat caaaa 
efftcicna priasa ot exenplaria ormls bon* , sine hrx' quod ex- 
dndatur ~boni tas craata« qua eraatvras danoainantur bona 
sicut fotnia inhaerente. 


-^ f.^i^ ^.m.^^^ .^^,.^ m. .^T ^^ j.^r...^.^Lr -'^.^ .Jnj 

r^ ^ ^-^—•■^ ~ -— :4boi«er- 

qi 9tlir 

-- »* i\^- 


f ».^ %.^ i 

sino^aX^ ad^ X/iaitum ^oor^^ » at swm ac i^X? 



MothiDR could hm mom formal and e^ licit or Kara 1b 

aoeordanea with the pointa «a have prarioualjr aada in thla 

chapter. Uut, if the erpllelt Bantian of the Platonic back- 

prauwi of Saint Auguatlaa doea not aerre to fnii<l4 the datar- 

■Inatlon, nhat ia ita function? Parhapa «a can find an anaver 

la a alailar t«xt. In S.T., II-IJ, 23, 2, «e find in tha first 


£t In IV r« Irin, Uuguatinusj dicitt "Ita dletan eatt Daoa 
raritas eat, slcut lilctxim est: I>eOT spiritua eat," Flrgo 
earltaa non eat aliquld craaton in aniisa, aad eat Ipaa Vrnvm, 

To thia Saint Tboaiaa anavarat 

Ad priflDB arto. IHceadut quod ipaa aaaentia divlna earl- 
taa est, aJcut et saplentia ^st, at bonltaa oat. Onde slcut 
dlalwnr bool bonitata quaa oat Daua, et aapiaataa aapiantla 
quae oat IJous, quia bonltis qua fonsaHter \yoni suaus est 
partlcipatia qaaadan divinae bonitatla, at aaptaojUa qua for- 
aaliter aapiontes sunua est parti cipatlo quaadao divinae 
•aiiisBtlaai ita atiaa eatrltaa qua foraalitar dillrlatna prozi- 
nun eat quaedan partici patio dlvinao caritatis. Hie enin 
aodua loqaandi conauetua eat apud Flatonieoa , quoni doc - 
trines jnbutus fuit 'Ufustinvia . Quod quician non advertentes , 
jMC verfaie eiua auapeerupt oceaaioBea arnmdi . 

If «• do not attend to tha fact of tbe Platonic iaflu- 
anee in Saint Aumiatine, i>aint Thovaa aajra, «a naj inadrartently 
be led into error by hia language. Tha prinary raaaon for call- 
ing attention to the Platoniam ia nreciaely, tharefore, to «am 
ua aaajr fron an i»rroneaua, i.e. a Platon5e, interpretation of 
hia auc tori ta tea . 

Thaa, In the ease of the Auguatinian auc tort tataa bear- 
ing an thia oolnt «• find an exact confimation of our prrrioua 
eoncluaioaa and, in addition, a rule of intarpratatien which 



-Jbunq 4«p. 

fan odJ to ^-ast «tf o a «en ot» wr ix 

maw oi ^vtolwtmif «y '4 *^ i)cal(in^«£4 e^ a^ ; rs yii 

•■»e<f «^« to tsQAn Ad>t fir fSUEi'f 


oould b« arrnllrablo to all casea of Sanctl irtio, to ar^^ «xt«nt, 
«Md TlatofRlc IdMM or lamuaa* or nmm dubious and indetaral- 
nato •xpr9BBi0ts tit the tjpo which aboolr! be Interpreted and 
aot wore widely ewtmwlad. 

!!■ hKve already cited teecte of niot^rvioe vhieh ualnt 
MJbKlts to thf> eane treataeiit. 7t will be of Talae to 
tne the eow^entary on the He TH^LnlB Wordnlbua tvxm thla 
»tanrtpe1wt. Saint Thenae rweofntsee^ lui he did in the easw of 
3«int ^Ti«T««tine, that '>!oitf8lw» displays a strong ?Iato«iie 1n- 
flvenee. ' Thie ^nflBenoe 5b erwelflfld by the doctrines which 
he fMTflaenie as necessary for httokgromd. Th«Hie are precisely 
the The o r y of Ideas md the ^rla flatojdca, TiMrh are explained 
as has alrear!^ been done In this study, Thas the ITla tonic 
theory and a iMSsihle FLatonle interpretation is prsseoted. 
Hesswsr, if ws exsMlne Itfw texts In which the issue b e c esw s 
ens sf a Flatonlc or noB-Plat<wle lnt«rrr«ta*1on, we find a 
eensistsn* rs>wt1an of any '-'osslhle Platonic sense of the 'as- 
says sad this (>wnerally by an assertion that Pionysios express- 
ly rejects the Platonic neaninp "... exelndit erroresi qnoraadar. 
Platonieoraa." The interpretation is fstiided, where garasnsy by 
eatplicltatl on of the teoct according to the ?»attem of the 

and the unity of all transcend e n t al r>crfectionB, Thus each of 

of th* c o wi^ntary w><1rh tctw>« on these questioas 
the trsst— nt of an auctorltoa witMn the fra*ewnrk we 

have dsseribed and according to the rrlncinles laid dosn by Saint 


fl#^: '0 IZft «i# ' •'•a ltln» 

hu^ jJnt ml biiam* iMrtR vmai fit*-* 'fc 

u.i 'li :^s£iJ^d8qc 4i2 

.9 lytB 

'<ai •* 

wit . afew twhws gjt Ao ti 


hlaaclf and applied, ma «• hav* WiMif to trtw corraap— line 
ef Au^uatinian anctoritatea . 
1M wqr exaadaa Dm eonawitarj on Ui» Liber t-'-e Cane la 
from tfaa aaiM ataadpolnt. ilaro the situation 1b afj— what di/> 
fUMnt, ainee «• are not dealliKt with ona of the baneti bat 
with a ohlloeopbtts . 'kure attain Saint Yhoaaa places the Platooic 

Infloentfo and, of eourae, the influence of Prod us >^latonicus 

behind the work. Again the Platonle baskgroand la fsndaasn- 

tallj apecified bjr an exposition of the via abetractlonis aad 

of the Thsosy of Ideas. The Platonic " supposltlones " and the 

text of tho lewantatio Theologlca are the basic tnildea in un* 

derstandlm; the text. Honeirer, tbe co — ant IssMdiately nlaces 

the dlsevseion within the franework of ths causes aad "eausal- 

ity" throuRhout is read in the llftht of Tbaalstie theories or 

Is, on oecasion, expressly so corrected. Morsover, tbe Torj 

interpretation of the tect moves the author, oB soKe points, 

•way froa Proclus and the Flatonists. Ait ifaa ceaasntary is 

not aerely a raadlai of a text; there is, in addition, a dster- 

ataatlon of truth and here DiooTSius is the principal auctori - 

tas for correction as well ma conftr nation. Arlsta41e is 

alao but less often explicitly rafarred to. It is oost sifr- 

Mtlcant that DtofTsios Is Invoked preelsely in tbe eaairal 

points of Platonic doctrins which are the sub.ject of this stu^y 

and in which we have a saw ths De Dlvinia Moninibus beeoas an 

anti-PlAtoBle work. This oeaaantary, tberefore, continoea the 


stootfaiS titi^ i»9fiXq a&soH? ioJbab air _ ^ • sCiiv 

i. '.^ aljv adi lo flolJiaotpta oa ^ <;«l'£Jx» .a? 

•1"' ' ^"^. X*9l&4^ »< ..^ aJt airi0i;nai(l afMd tana iffimt la oaldMiiv 

«i oi^i*^ ' 33 aa If a« aa nat^oa T ia ci Tat jg^ 

^...^^ add* «l ^4 .....^ a. mt mtt^tP*^ ^**^ iumXUti 

X^uJa ^tii Ic .^t<ftf« •<it ava ilalrfar a<i/«t?Mi& oimNTalH lo •<aZa« 
CM 9moo*i' iJ rT9»a ovAd «w aot/lv oi toa 


rk ttf thai oa t^ l« M.Tlnl» Mortaibii and with It eonstltuias 
«B iataRttlatad body of critleisK dir*ct«i preelaelj at the min 
ibaaaa dapamtant v^^on Uta via ^^fltflilB* 

Thia brlaf azan^ nation of Saint Yboawi* detanda«tlaa af 
<— tipjltatoa has aorved to ctmfira and develop tha eonelnsloaa 
•f tte first part of tola chapter . The Platonic intarprataiian 
«f iha ralatlaoahlp ba t awo n particulara and tha Idaae, ar« with- 
ia a dpIatAia ftw— mk » ba taa a o ooreatoraa and Oad, la aada in 
tha lifbt of tha Thaory of IdaM aa darlvad trm tha via ^. 

and Um via Fgatenica . In ita axU a u o f om this in- 
Lou Iwrlwi aa (1) tha ndavtiaM of tha ralation to tha 
ainsla Una of fomi emsali^} (2) tha liiMillaij of tha rola- 
tlon, without bcnafity even in ita am lina of foraalitar, of 
troa aaa nwiawy camaa; (3) tha ootolai^eal niltipUdl^^ of latl- 
■ata prineiplas* Aa altaraativ« darlvativa iatarpretatlona, aa 
hava a eholea of (1) tha f^MdaMntol unification af tl» fanaOl* 
tlaa af pariieulara a w oog UaaaalviM and with tha aapwatad 
foni; (?) a pura axiriaaaaiaa} (3) tha inaartioa of an oatalogl- 
eal raalitQr in tha partieulara, airdlar to tha a^saratad pr5n. 
aApl«9 9«* MdaAidaK all tha \r%mmy <di«raa^riatieB of tha 
fttadBMBtal ralatlonanip to tha aap arat ed prinaipla. Ovar m- 
galaat thia w» hava ^aiat Thoaaa* ■wrlitlowt (1) a e«Hplax va- 
l«lft«Mld|> raatlag on an iairlaala fonallty and inelndii« f or- 
■Oly distinct a«uaalitiaa« affieSaacy, finality aad otaqxtarity, 
■ntaally Intarrelatadi (2> a diatiaetion b»taaaa priavy «nd 

,i ^^ii sfi "^*** 

«*tof •<«*f«l» *f« ni!Ua}« »» *«r»:»a ami 

mt <$imm al «tes> law •nMrs«v> aoMt^^d ««^ tuiJbir ol 

•dft §^ «S# ami k«ri«i> m flMfel 1m x«»«f7 acttf ^( a^U 

-Atfv ^•'-- — -H^ vi - » - - .^"^ «* V 

-•ri jtalqmo « ili tooh* ' ''«• *Manf{T ja£«& . 

•wt »f dm v*^-^^*^ ftttalrtio^ as. ma rsaHtvn ^kimaotii^l 


c«us««a allowing val eauaallty to bothf (3) a wimiiXm 
ultiflHite orineipl*, God, •ncXoslng all f)«rftMtlor aed Xine altl- 
■ata aauree of all yierf actions whethar ''ccBRKin'' or *piroper." 

Va facva alao eonflraad the 1ntarpr«»tatitre tachnlffua da- 
aerlbad la Chapter Ona, for our testa ham af^n ravcalad that 
tha datam^ nation of an aablfntotw tern or nhraae In tl^a dlraco 
tlon of the Platanie undarstandlng laada to Ita re.1aetion, 
while tha aane tarra oar p hr —a aay ha aceaptad whan the iBtar- 
r>rataiion is datandaad bgr nioKlatic nr^.ndnles. It la aiiraln 
ttaa ftadaaantal onpoaltlOTi of the via Thoaiatlea and tha iria 
Platottlea which undarlias the acaafniaaoa <s* ra.1actlon« 

Alao the Tlaw that Saint Thoaaa aadaratoad Flatcaile po- 
alticma mm aach in tha light of the via Platonica and the Thaory 
ef Idaaa darlvad froa it and n r a a a a ted in tha first hook of tha 
MatapJaraica la new eloarer. Va ara alao at this point In a po- 
aitlon to add aaeifehar ladication of the ooanandlog poaitioB tJKLa 
visa oeeupiad la Saint Thorns' trwat«ant» 

It is part of Saint Thoaaa' teehnlqoa to a^plogr a atrik- 
iaig pbraaa or a hriaf rafaraaca to draw into a diaeiuniaB a 
hraad thaoratiaal backgroand. 3oaa of thaaa phraaas baooae al> 
atat a otyoad ahertlMMd for thaoriea and doetriaaa. Tins a 

poABt in Ma tiwttiy of knealadia is tiad to tiia 


*naB ania lapia eat in anioa aed apaeiaa lapidla." The intro- 

doetioB of the tteaaa into a context sorvaa to hrinf in, as 

Ip tite anttra th aar y - for which it atanda. Now in tlM 


»lt»im » (t) jitsetf of -%^sj»mm» tmnfjahmXIm ft- ^ ----.— 

mttmtb Mtf cl A M lift not^Tv. 

•^ftMiir adt awtw - « ftd x«b w i g q •»> <mft# »> 
oJbB^ •! M •••£qi«{i«> alffalMMrr ^ bftabrff«*«fr «l (ttqf 

^•01 kift r-' --— T»iT til* l»0Bt#taD.^^ '--* •— * --" 

••q • Al Jttlpq M .«rut«X9 9DB aJt m 

s pj»«, ,,H, 5 ^^i. — K ^. if^ iMiyti "» latiiiij gal 

M«'«l(| 9d» •* -'» ^ "» -«»■• r-^-Tf ^ T»«lf «M «J iBJ*| Lr,«#«ft!» 

•^<Kr#al eifr **. «»xt>»q« -^t ;t«» •ItVBl mtt» nxa* 


on ill* esntral t«xt of th« first book Off tto lloU « 

phyicg dealing with t^w crigla of tiie i hoary of Tdoas, "hoao" 

iB usod tm a rothor elaborated exaeiple. If w ok— Ina ttaa 

ootnirroneoa of this mampi», vs find two thin<^t (1) that it is 
«Md to illtetrato alaoot, if not all, the points «• hacvs Hads 
cMKoming the characteristics of tbs Idsas and thslr rslaticxi- 
shipsi (2) tliat it is frequentlj ua«d as as SKplaaatoty rafor- 
KUISMls WfdiSMMni im bsiag flvsn is othsr 

texts. Tfaos this Ingr s»Mpls bstowss a staarilMad r»f« 

to tlM ssplaaatione in the eowaentary oa tiw iJStlfllHttBt '"^ 
ttMi all sach refsrent tests to that o?q}laaatioii» ThM, for 
•xaeple^ tbe priaary soqilanatian of Platonie baekgnmad in ths 

itary or tte De Pivinis MssJUilbws is gi van in taras of ths 
htmo sgoMpls) an arguoent of AristeUe is ia tr s ^ac a d , fay aoans 
of this nffswfile, into a dawlopasnt b a s e d on Proclus in ths Li-» 
bar Pe SStti coB^ntwy; in tbe Ve Verltate it is used to mx" 

plain the relatiQB»hip of the sapavaied bonaa to the partien* 


Tba atdaapraad use of the heap - hoao SSgg/iggi mmafUmg 
in esaWxta wtmrm edwr souroas* sa^ as Proelusy ara baiag 
ttsadf inciiaafcas agala tbe iatarpanatration vt tba iinrtarstinrilag 
dofvalepsd la tto aoaaaalaiy oa tba Mstaplpaies * Onsa acain« 
ttorafoas* it is tbe rsdavtioa of tbe Platonic arpawta to tto 
Via Platopica that gaidaa Saint Tboaas * interpretatian of Pla- 
tonlSB ahsB to finds it e'ven in otliar sources, in Proclos, tto 
Liber pe CaMsla « snd so forth. 

*' ^Mdbi yn, iripcii¥ 94# Its nJtai^ tuf^ r 

«cl# ai^BHcx* 0«r II »■% m mi cmmju ftl 

at #t 4a(i# U) tsvxiAi vm& iMtitl: 0W ««ft9RBK» miff '^ tmrnruaoo 

--aobiztani timi^ him mamitl wit W «: • tmtJt % ^:< 

-•Mljn Y>o#sanX9e» cm » kwar -"■ 9tl el Ai ittll' (£) '" 

~1£ «ti ai nuL3«i^ fl» bmmd . otnt ^filmttx* wJUH 1» 

.00: tr O* >«1<> ''O 

Ad^ c«vi^«*^ ait «Morsiioa imiJ%f ut amm H wlaali. k. ...-^ — 

CHAPim fin 


ThfS elphty-fofurth qaesticn of th« first part of Dm 
S iawa iB in raoQr WQrs a rrvarkahle pi»c« o£ Hritint;. The cih* 
tlr* axDOBltlon is taraa and tif^ly orrianad and diaplagnB doc- 
trinal and structural eXenenta »hleh rItb it a unlqua inpor- 

Tte qaaetian deala vlth hamma intalloetaal knoidodi^ 
of Btaterial thlof^* Tha oaaontlal poaltion im prasfloiad in 
tka firat aoipwi artlcXM teglanlBK vltli tbe vanMmm atethar 
tba aanl kaovs bodlaa throngh ttaa intelloet and mfwiM ••e- 

aaaalvaly throanh a conaidaration o£ poaaibla vagra of lBKar» 

lag — tbrou^ Ita aoaanca or tiiroui^ apociao — throui{h ln-> 

apaeios'^ -~ through apaeiee derivad frtx iwiatarlal ba- 
lagar .» in tha » ratiqB«8 aatamaa* " >- to thp doatrlwi «t 
tka arigination of spaeiea froa aaaaa «mI their dapa w da w ey in 

Qpaa aaaaa. Tha ayataaatie or doctrinal arnaniaatlen 

pr — a ut atlon of tha qnestino ia iJBadiataly elaar trvn thia 
ainpla racltati«r of toiiioa. 


tnf H9T-' — ' • =.--'>•' '^'TT'.. 

-419 vtf Do •»»Jb9 •! 

><Mi^ «QKl4»il^ toM i>no&^ x^trf^is^ taw «•«•[# •! no 

HY »i^«N»9»VT «J BD«»|»K Xp lit .iWUrtr If te 

«mli»<B(ta MSi- 4Cihr ftn rmram 9m 

IftUmn iMOi ^ I «4* «»K^ JtaM or1# 

-•ff XAHaJjuaKl^ morti {MVhmh wehwqa dpio^i •« aotofl^e Wlaa 

tot aol^MlittSV) £juiK#«ol) im . ct^ idt trnqft «ttg 

•Mllfit lift a»t.tii^«9»« 9£an<« 



Mow thar« Is as other nlaoa in tho wrltinca oC Salni 
in wUeh %bl* quMition la thse oocplijcltSx y d aad 
s^fstMutlcAlly d0pl(9«d in a •«ri«« of s^tlclas* Tham ar*^ 
of u w MUU j iwwpwiii parallelB to inrilTidoBl parte of the q«M. 
tlon* bat th<ir« Is no eorrospondlai^ block of artidas aiiioh 
sboir tho sane resoiJblaKse to the quootion aa does» for awpla. 

the quefltioB on T<loas in tho uiuiiwiMtiii'y on tho aantayaa to the 

aaao subjoet treataoat in the Sa— a Theoilogiao , Alaoat iava- 

riably evMi tho texte ahlch titv warm or less 'arallal to tho 
fiMftvidaal artlcl«>9 occur In contexts of quite a dtiffaront sort. 
Ths 4io««Mrtea, ''or wuaple^ of ianate species is praoontod in 

the Be Vorjtata within a oor«lderati(xi of mens aa an iaaea of 

fi 9 

the Trinity} again vithin the fk>aae«ork of tho Ds Msgiatro, 

in the treataent of asn in the state of lnnoc<mee and of the 

aoparatod soul's iRodo of knoainr. The origination of univer- 

sal knowled^^ fVoa aonoe OKperieaeo aiypears in the Coatra Qon - 
tilao unrier the rubric "Ouod aniaa huaaaa iaeirtiat cub corpo- 

and in the OaasoUo Unica lo Anlaa aarisr "Utrua 

,.-^2 _ ... _ . 

separata a corpora poeait intelligore." In ({sasral, ths 
pointe i nv o o tif^ted aad tfaaoeo aaintaiaed in the al«hty-fGWth 
question are to bo fotaid olaoabare In Saint Thoaaa within dis. 
eusalona of thn aatare of Iflis soul and of soparated subatancos, 
of the knovledf^ of nod and so forth or in the coHsentaries as 
ssnanl imnrl bj the littem beiivr eaawntsd. Tbs prsosatatioa 
of the preblea, theeaforo, and the doctrinal structiare of the 


htt» fmeoq xt^i^^tCcixe fatit at talswmo m^di ifoMw at MtoBHtT 

^«r» Mstft ••ftXrltina ^ t ,_ . _ . 

-a«i«l» «» ' lo 

te no 
i Id 


li. . i»V 
«|-«^ imU al AM lo 

bono* al^•lf»v Ml^ T' 

^ ^ ^ 

ttf^ te 

tstm "*« 




r , _ 


1 «cr9 Ji»K fsKl 

.jQ «U at 

d#«r»V^Mblto eri^ fll -t iMW boa 
•«tfo fll^i* MRacfT iatea fit n ttauo^ »</ 4# •» nc 
J? • ^ - -fti •!« bm. Imm am lo ----- -*f -io ar^" 


qpMatlon ara without parall«l in Urn witlnfrs of Saint 

Actually, tha conparatl^m baekgrouatd maj ba axtandad without 

tha diacorary of a trua parallel to tldji riuoatlon. Thus, for 

axaapla, no comparable piece can bo found in Albert the Oreat, 

Saint Bonaventure, or in tha Suaaa attributed to Alexander of 


It la to be noted, too, that the posltiona takan aaem 

stated with the sureneaa and finally of definitive datcralna- 

tlona. Saint Tboaaa hare does not enplofjr the apparantJj aora 

■odaat aodaa of aaaartion aueh as we aoBMitlaaa find alaawhara, 

aa, for exan^le, in t^ Da Varitate . 

Et ideo praaomibfaa praadictis noaitionlbua rationabl - 
llor iyl<tettir santimtia Phllc8ophl....^t 

Bare his tone is Mrs aagiatarlals 

DieenduR eat ergo quod aniaa per IntdlectiaB eo^oedt 
corpora ooi^tiona iMsaterlall, unlv«raall et nauasuji 1«,35 

Sad haae opinio laprobator. . . . Ralinqultor ergo quod 
left BSterlalla cofmita in oognosf 
tarialiter sad Mgis iMatarialltar.^ 

opartaft Bsterlalla copxita in oognoseenta axlstara nea 

£t ideo dleandoB oat quod anlna nan cogneselt corpora- 
11a per species naturalltor iBditaa.^^ 

Onde dicaatei ast quod apaciea Intelllplbilea quibna 
aoLaa noatra intalliglt, non affluunt a f orals saparatia.^^ 

DleanduB qiosd ispesslMla aet intaUaetoa 
pr a aaa nt ia vltaa atatus, quo paasibili corpori coniungitur, 
•liqitfd iatal21«a«« in aetc nisi ecn'vartsndo ss sd phaniaa- 

It idao naoasaa eat dieore quod intellactua noatar in- 
talliglt natarlalia alistrahando a phantaaastlbus, et rxtr 
■aterialia sis eoiMldaratur in laaskarialiiia aHqaalan cor- 

«M(HdT Snk^ %> t^nUtta tdi- n 

i r 

•sii ««iatlr , .: , 

,*«rTO ^^- " al btn^l hi 9L<'^ ■> ma ^' 

to U o$ fit te ««^ 

w ■ ■■ ^oo^ ^tmiom (MT o>^ al #1 

--■...-„._ _^. * — 

J «. _»..». _ _j /_^«^ 

b»« -^ 

-A^nrx>» ^■ 

..-> ftsr r.-r^r^ trrm tr. 


* j'm: iii ' 

>;iji03 miAmjtli aaxiATziiifiaiBJC sx ti^ 

v^T-'.ii • .■ ,t; 


Et Idao dloandUR est quod Rp«cl«a 1nt«llipiblll8 •• habet 
ad Intelleetua ut quo intelliglt Intcllectvis.'^l 

Saint Thonas, thwrafore, approaehod XM.8 question with a clear- 
cut position of his own on each of the ealn points involved. • 
aire not studyine a tentatlTe inrsstlratlon of a in>obleii| rather 
the thorou^^h-eolng systeaatlc structuro and tlie torw of the deter - 
■Inations Indicate that a definitive dootrino Is :>elnc presented. 

But If the assertion of poeltleas is categorical, the 
■od* of presentation Is not fanrely positlye and expository. On 
%bm contrary. Saint Thonas has chosen to set h5s doctarines in 
conscious contrast and opposition to those of others. If ve «x- 
adae tbs carous of each article fron this standpoint «• find 
the foUowlnKt 

Article 1: The prlrd T>h? losophl and Plato with Plato*s 
theory as the pivotal center of dlsetisslon. 

Article ?» The prlal phllosnph l and Plato with the prlal 
phllosophl occuf^ing the central oolnt. 

Article Jt An option is presented between Aristotle and 
Plato with a detervfination in fairor of Aris- 
totle . 

Article li: Plato la the first of the advpraarles with 
ATlcenna praseatad in function of Plato's 

Article 5: Saint Au^justlne is presented as dependent upon 
yet rsaovad tram the doctrine of Plato. 

Artlele 6t Three opinions -- those of the Matnralas « of 
Plato and of Aristotle — are described and 
Aristotle's Is selected. 

Article 7t The doctrljie is expeaad in a posltl-ve fashion 
but In brief contrast to the Platonic theorj'. 

Article 6t No adrersarles. 


w^ ,b»rtorttt %^ntoq ntem dofio no tsmo fti?y91m»q St» 



^ jA 

,Stitoa LMTttmn atf^ ^ 

l9 ^ sii *£»l#«l 

!<,» .i;;lia 

ml i>«o: 

■ iv;.}./ %-••■ 

4'J »».' *-. 

•^vtMnit 9j[isa/aL'? «bi«' tut «en*eB>a ittjtaii 

•Mil oN fS 9l9tttA 


It win compiM\9 Um plotur* if «« tutd, fro« QuMtlana £ighty. 
fl'v* to Bigbty-^l^y ihemm axtlelea in which adiraraarlM ar« 
■MrtloDMl la Um cor piui . 

Question 85, Article 1: Pooitivo txreeentatlon of the theory 

but In brlttf c«atrajit to Plato's. 

Artids 28 As in Artlclo !• 

Artiels 3 I No advsrsariss but a brief contrast 
with Plato, 

QuMtlon 87, Article It A contrast to the Platonici. 

Question 88, Article 1: An initial choice is tiade botwoon 

Plato and Aristotle} Aweiroes* hm- 
ever, is introduced as an Indepenri- 
ent and iwportsnt advwrssry. 

Article 2: Aveqpaee is introduoed as the 

prlanry opposition but his theory 
!• said t« be dsfassible only on 
Platonic fproonda. 

Throughout Qneotioos Eighty-^oar to Eighty-eight, then, 
there is only otm place in a cgrpas wtere an adwarsary iAvsrroes j 
Is introdixed without satplicit rsferoaoe to Plato, In the eighty- 
fourth question, the Platonic theory is the prlaary bftokgroond in 
Articles 1, 3, h, 5, 6| in Article 7, Plato's doetriaa is a foU 
ef eoBtrasU In Article l,ths prlaj philosophi set the stags for 
Flatoj in Article 2, though they are aore preaiwnt and indeed 
prlaary, they are related to Flato in basic prlBciplei in Arti- 
«lm 6f they rsfiraoant a separate dootrlaal option but are con- 
traated to Flato and preparatory for hia. In Article k ATlcenna 



' ' ra**al<| mm " 

- n JSJv JT 


senim dohiw at t 

io# «vn 

• ■'■_■■" 


•<*« ^ay&tiaM lolvf at Jotf 

;, Od# •# ; i k ll ©i 

.^^A ^^ ..L — A.^ L ^m ... « .r* _p_^ ^ A 


1. ^ftA jtt « tit •a«£f •< 

tl'oft m mi tatiSn^b •'o^aX? «T aftUtlxA Si |d ,ig « J «C «X •alsts'xA 

loT *•♦*»««**« It ^vOi^lmL I .ta 1» 

-«•• ant* #«($ «oW«^ fan !••»*«»«»«* » » twaMrs-scryi ^pHlJ' ^^ •X'J 


Is In eontlnultgr vlth Plato. In ArtieJL* 5 Aiifnistlm Is In 
eontlnuitgr uid contrast with Plato. 

Marsoivnr, Saint Thooas, In aalectim^ ths ortter of prf^a- 
entatioriy plmoe^ In tha Initial artleles of •i^sMgr-four and 

•Igbty.^i-va all tha orineiplas vbieh eomtitote the via Plato - 

aica. Ba was thus anahlad to rsfer tbrocrhsot tha mrtialuam 

to tka i^>Ileatl«a8 of Flato*8 position irlthout rodamsloplBK 
ths tnmm of rafarsnca. 

Ob this shovlnf;, thsn. It is Plato who plays ths role 
throu<7^oxit as tho petmmrj astaftOBlst, and the fuadSBSntal op> 
tlon to be ^MmtwAmi Um Ij s t— s i i Platoniaa and Saint ThoMs' 
mn ^«niion of AristotalianiSB. 

To •nBssrias thsnt in the alfhtjofouryi q[«a«tlon (and, 
ladsodf to the end at ths eighty-«fovtrth question) there is a 
vKlque systewatlc Inirestii^atiaB of hnnan knovladfw In vfaleh 
definitive detor<!*i natioos «*• presented la el««r«eut and con<- 
•eloas contrast to ths posltisni «t Plato and tha PlM%mAmtm» 
tttsit asa «• sa^'y therefore, et the adnd of SaJsit Theaas as hs 
aqnpiroaehad this qti^tioo? Must «e not sajr not orHj that )% had 
■ads a daflaltlipa choice hlasolf bnt also that ha had dseldsd 
that his asin thaoretleal opponltian aas In Flatoolsa md that 
tho fundansntal ortloa did not Involve Aomistlne or Avieenna or 
or anorons elas bat rather ths Plato wh» atsod bohlni 
all In oppositloa to his osn ^rlstotlo? Thus is eeinha- 
siasd the tariLqva laportance of thasa articles (elf^htj-four to 

i.^ -jnitq Bri* 11(8 evlt-t^Jf^s** 

•s3i)MtC»l«t«JttA lo aoiaa.. ..— 

• (Mr Motft ( 1* 9dl V / •» « 

tfftidt? '•'> A'^rtrn^^jfy MMKvf ^ ' ». ~- 

D %» itiDf^l-«>7 wlf of #«0vfnc« avoids 
Oft it SHuyff 4tt£*C lo hMte v^f "^^^ ,*t'A* '""««*♦ ,>•*•» ok mtf* J'eif*' 
fiMif etf ^ rr IwT -^a ^oa •* 4si^ :ael<.lML;p »l:i^ 

o*aff ariar -rMfitut ^ vir£ 


•Igh^-elf^t) vhieh alono in the orlf^nal works of S:i1nt Thdaa* 
•MMtlWto SB •aeieiRiad «x pntf*aaQ qpstMMtle Imraatlfratloo «r 

Sines « thoreforSf Saint Thomas hiaaelf has supplied us 
vlth so laaglsterlal a tstxt, we will sTnthssise his prssentation 
of the Platonie theory of knowledge largely in function of this 
el^ty->fourth queetion. 

Since the principles of the Tla Platooic a precisely de- 
Wmdiie the objects of ceientific knovledge w^dch cannot be 
foond in the sensible world, it is obvious that 2ill intellectual 
knc«ledi!{e — seienees, definitions and ariiniBBntationB ~ nivt 
refer to the Ideas (nnd the aathepatica ). Posited precisely 
for this pc n rpoee, the Tdeas are, therefore, the rroper object of 
the hasten intelli peace and are knoiwn priwo et per ae. Since 
they are imnaterial and arc correlates to the intelligible spe- 

cies, they are intelligible In act; consequently, Plato needs 

BO po we r eoaparable to the agent intellect. The objects of 

Intellection are presented to the nind as alreanly actually in- 

As ultiaate ooq^lieative T:)rinciples the Idess are not 
ardy the object of kncsledge. They are also its source and 

cause. Saint Thomas indicates a Texy close parallel betseen 

the relationship of ths Ideas to intellect and their relation- 
ship to natural entities. 


lo fi« ^«>#«r<a 

OP «lrt ft :v o« <{.tJtK 
alfU 1» amJuhmA ai t£«8«^ -^< .^/iaxtoaAi uH acit to 

. ..^dvlite «&:— ...J atljMnJ^ W w,-„.- 

fl^ ,ai»aK*f9e — 

llMLteMK bmAkmefl ^.{ 99l3 _„ , — . otf isSm 

lb AMtdb rw aMbt «d^ c : «M# «1 

"•qn 9liitjtHt»stit wAt ot •B#AXarnB9 ««i bm JC«f- : r» iwf# 

-_ ^i •eti- ■ ^« '^^,. 


Jkm VTKO farwm ■•pamtu ponabat p«rtldip«ri «*i4nMMi^i 
nostra et a iitat«rla coin oral! ; ab anjna nuidan nostra ad 
sojuoic—tiiiM, • ■atsrla wro eerporali srt assswton ut vi- 
cut aaterla cori>orali8 i^r hoc quod parti cl pat Idaae lapl- 
dls, fit hie lapiSy lis intsllsetcis nostsr nsr hoe qood 
partioipat ideam lapidio, fit Intelllgens laplden.2- 

A nuBb«r of ezprosslons are used to designate the relation. I'roa 

tbe side of the Intellect or aool. It la spcdcen of as a "con- 

29 30 "^l 

tact" or a "touching" or a reflecting; ^'rcm the side of the 

12 13 

Ideas, It ia said to be an "influx" or an "liapreaeian." But 

it is soet corstonly eaqjrossed in the language of participation. 

Kov Saint Thoraas i^ives no elaborate analysis of Uie rneanlng of 

participation in this case, but his parallel with the parti ci pa- 

tion of natural things, his inciicatian that the caxxsalit; is 

' Ki 17 

iBBsdiate an<i that It is foraal in diaractor dves ^ery high 

probability to an interpretation such as has been given for the 
otber type. In any case, the Ideas are certainly the cause and 
t^ isBaediate cause of tiie species by vhii^ we know. Since tbe 
Ideas are the causes, iaoadlate and total, of the intrinsic in- 
telligible species, it folloeB froB their iiaaaibility, that 

knowledge is eonsitvitly present in the soul ani Uiat the in- 
tellect is natxn*ally "plemis oanlbus spedobus intelligibili- 

Since the sengibilia were initially ruled out as a pos- 
sible origin or object for intellectual knowledge and since the 
soul naturi0.1y possesses knowledrre through participation in the 
Idea, neither t^ie acnsibllia nor the senses can be true causes 
of intellectual knowlsdi^. Tbe fact reoains, however, that we 















I 9m t! a> fvU^ 


-KJ; «m1^ ijBtl^ f»u "Xoea «li iti ^ a — ' iq xX^tn»4*0(» al 

"Voq M as iw» (Miirt «- ^ aten <i 

arf+ ■' 

ooeuAo airt^ «(j nao aaatraA orifi tns £! a a<19 : |A«bT 

9w JaiU ^t arj w cri «iMrtaa»n i^sel atff onut Xa»^a %0 


4m • ■— to Ro Uxrouffh mtmm process In what ia ordlnartlj aallad 
"laamlaK" and that tha aaoaaa do parfora aoae function. All 
thla la mo, hoaavar, hsaiwa ahan tha aonl la unltad to the 
body, aatiar lu eoase aa InpadlMKit to kno«led«a and the aoul, 
immnmd la the bodj, font^ts tha knoaladfla attieh It natunaiy 
haa* Studr, praetiee aad the aanaaa all function to rewova 

ttM MndFaaeaa and to brim; the aoul to rwwbw ita natural 
knovlad^. Thus laaniliig la really only a raaeatMriUfr. 

At Boat, therefoire, the aamaa mr^ eaaaaa par acdrtana or dia- 
yaaiag catoaea and Saint Tfaoaaa hiaaalf parallela this doctrine 
aitli that at tiie generation of aubatantlal foraa, in which the 

aeti've larlneiplaa in taatter fioietlon only as disposing and isre- 
paratory eaMsaa, not aa true seeondary caaaea.^ It folloaa 

from the aaae aronad that tha dapendenee on sense is aseideaial 

aad, indeady tbmX the soul ftmctions nore easily and perfectly 
in proportion aa it fk^eea itaelf fran matter and the aenses. 
The laroblan of knoaledcre in the separated soul, therefore, doaa 
aot really exist for Hlato. Ttas soul released froa the body 
bacoaaa eoapleto maater of the knowlad^a a^iich it alwayB has. 
It is for this reaaea Uiat Plato appears only oace in ^.T., 1, 
39* The particularised problaMi allied iiaint Thoaas treats in 
raferaaM to the lensaLedRo of the separated aool are nca-axlateat 
cr alroady adved in Ute initial natenie poaitlon of the flrat 
article. Lilceelse, the qaaatlon concemlag tauaan knovledpe of 
the saparated iishs< saiSB proaenfcs no difficulty, for tfas Idaaa 

be; ^ - - ■ «HW •* 

»ii, .".:r»8 Off? ff^Jfr' •?. 

Xf:.ijytM4aa ft ftoiOr » i wU MrxaoLt 

•S< X^Xsrx sit ^lirT««i Mtfr mi 

-at+j 15 a|rt»ht^ > ^ o-m r. ** 

I«iji9ji9gtt a2 ottRM (B moet^bKBq^ mif tmiii amtoy^ m»m wiff writ 

^X*f>»*nr<i hra «suv noolioaul luos •rid /»d/ s*?*^'f? ,?*» 

•oftb «4n «XuDa baJ!»*iL»q&s mU al o ^ lo iMXifirkT orf? 

,1 ,.X»i; n^ •3<5o 'drt stiMfciett off aawvrt alifi •ml al #1 

al afaan^ OMoiT JniaS <<i»Jtifc7 »«/.'^»t't it<^9 NsdUraklitaq «<- 

izfti 9ASr l0 aoJMlaaq aiwlairt XajUxoI •«« al dcrlus xibftcrtlft k» 


arm itrtAamly %bm scpavsiod Mk«tano«s and tb«»e tlie iniellMt 
in t bmmm lvum primp gt 2S£ ££• 
Thia brief avamusy l—iiriw all iba aain polnta of 4oe^ 

trim attributed to Flato aiKi tfaa j^iiHiti tivouch guaati 

Kllthty-fofur to Elffhtgr-niBs.^^ Tba a^donoa praaantad in tha 

•upportlJig notaa ahovs tteat it alao brinfiv ta8«t>her all Um aain 
tlaiaan rafarred to throvi^jiaat the trorta of i>alnt thcnaa and tima 
eonatitntaa a eyat J iea l a of thaae theaea aridch^ often aa iaolatad 
polnta of doctrine. Saint Tfacaaa had read in so nany different 
a enr eea and eontexta. Ma r a et a r, a away of the aase taztual 
evldanee ahovs that theaa thaaaa are indifferently attriUitad to 
both TlaXo ami the Platpnici . In theae queatlona, than, tiaint 
Thaaaa achieves. In cmaiterooiaa to hia cma poaitlra e aqU a n ati on, 
a agraUMOia, in oppoaitional thaaaa, of a general Plataoio theo- 
ry of haoadadfje* 

But the thaaaa arc not nuraly related to tha ayataoatlc 
and articulated praaantatioo of Saint Thaaaa' oen doctrine. 
BMgr ha-ve a jxijmkplm of ladtgr beatdaa thalr fuactioo aa a foil 
to hia vleva. In the two initial artlclaa of Quest! ooa bighAy. 
foor and Kiedrty-five, i>alaft Thonaa praaentad «ha ailB prineiplae 
aai the tmin outline of the yla Platonica . It ia in fuBetlca of 
and refaranea to this doctrinal backffrouBd that the poeitians of 
Plato are intradacan. ^21 the theaea beeoM ttan contlonooa 
aith the baalc Platonie arguaant and. Indeed, vith ena aaGeaption, 
infexaaeaa or iaplioatioai draan fToa It. The* aola aaaaption 

-sob 10 ft«arjbM| jiJuw 9dt il» . 

p»o-" ■ 'J^jMMdt !_:■■' — "[t tdt tarn ©arjLit o* •cviZ-JittvR —'-'»■ 

alM wit Xi« , "li «•** *nw»l« »' ♦< isn 
%adi Nm mi«^ tBtee %e aHmr erf* iBMUffrntl x d »twt»v : ^ 

XftV' a/ la jifTtte "Sen aSAiMSD* fcwr -^"' 
of ^. «ns i s oT tJ MmdM $mU •aodti MciMiivr 
4ai&£ ^ss»Ai ,e ? aaadi n 

••»- lo T« 

>ttiitifi aitf o# bateXan jfm^m *m trta—-"- art# Mi' v 

■:% nao ^ on ' 

•0J. . mbtm «6U bet. Mk *mA 

\o iKtiiaBu\ Bt et *1 .«£_ air 'sdt !• «niX4«N» vtCR ad* 


llBB In tbm thoory of tho function of Mmae and the tapadlnants 
arlslwr f>*<ai the body. This cannot bo dodueed clearly from the 
principles yet It is oontSjmous with tteai and with the doctrlns 
of tiva Boal, not only In tte sense that it rsadUj bsvaaoises 
tfaereedth but also in tho sen s e that it moondles an es^irlcal 
faet (!••• proeeee in hnasui learniag) wi^ thezn. Thus, Saint 
Hmms Imts plvBS us (1) a sjrRthssis of a co^smd Plstesle thssrjr 
of knoeledire; (2) in the llglit of basic Platonic princlpGLes, 
that 10, of the j4a Platgg£|a» 

Hear, If the outline of the artielse fdven ia the first 
pert of tMs charter is rerievsd, it will be noticed that, be* 
Flaito, only the early Natia*alists« Avicenna, Ai 
tp sad, in a liaitad aenee,. Saint Au^iaitine, 
adversaries in the bodies of the articles. Avieema «■! Salct 
ilMOwtiae are introdueed in riependeneo on Flatoj Ai«fMee*8 doe> 
trine ie said to be vcrkable only on a Platonle assasption* 
Averrsss is introtiuced b«l onse, in reference to a elngle point 
of doetriae, not as a patron of an altematlTe aeneral theory ef 
Icr owledlRe. The awin opposition thus di-vides Into the naterlal- 
Ists sad the PlaHedtets who are, on basic points, theasel^ns in 
Butual opposition. Thus throe fundanental optiens are offered: 
(1) Haterialisn, (?) Platonisn, (3) the doetrlne which Saint 
Yhnews clatne as his own ladar the patronage of Ari8totle*8 na>m, 
had the wai«ht of the initial articlee and of the gMMral 0Kt«i. 
sive trea ta ent of Flato indieatee that he, and not Deoocritus or 

" ' * »« #t «*^^ •««» «Jl* *il xfise <•« ,Xr '• lift 

Xji ' SB onltoenoan ■. tit e«£s S94 6* ■ 

tJiUbif'' ««t!ltf allMlf^ 41iMr (sMl«^J*«>£ aiM/ti mk •MtcXVWl aS^l^ '^SM*^ 

. _^ ^ •rt* Ito ,«t Jii*^ 

$9nr% m* off mflu • ' " «lt %» «iil>ao Mtf tl ,«■« 

a ]-tM 9M l9 tmiUist mi» trf. avJNi 

-I -■^- ,Jnt ntttth Moi* mt^lsi&n^ atm mat .-»--'—' 

id wrX^oMtt; («#n2«kr ^Iwil « ««>«8 otfv c;r«inci«l*t Mir C«r ■#e^ 

»jite8 4&' • -" (c) ,»-*---n («) . -' -— — . {X) 

•» it«#£niNMa»ei Joo bmi ,(»r? "- "* —-» — ;-- -*-!*l t« d, .^.« 


slitua or a^r wmAariaHmtp Am consldcrad to hm th» prXmHf-'^ 
Now S«lat AufniBtlm eo— to tho e«Rt«r of tho •ttt^o ia 

the corpoo of only om article in Questlona Eiphty-four to Elghty- 
el{^t, bat his -rolco io frequontly heard In the objeetiono and 
in tho Md coptra eitatlom* In •vary ea8«, tko aaetorltatoa 
of Saint fturuatlne aro brooffht in line vlth Satnt ThoRaa* ovn 
aspoeltioB without arer an indication that Saint Aai;ii8tifw la in 
orror. Tba dalnrirtBgticn— arm madm througti the foUovlni; teeh- 
niques* (1) tJw anatoaritaa is sii^iljr Interporatod in a Thosiatie 
MMBOf (2) tha intarpretatlon la aapportad by a counter text 
tram 3aiBt Augustine hiaaelf;'' (3) Saint AMgwtliw im mmld to 
be reportlac mm opinion rather than aeeertiaf it. 

aaonr the Auf^ustiniaB auctoritatee introdiioed in the 
•Ifejeetion la a aerlee of tcncta wMoii loerallel points In the rla 

Platonlca : 

The MtabUltor of ■aterial thinsn I, 6^, 6, ktk, 1 

The deception of the eeneea I, Sk, 6p we, 1 

Tntollect cunot know bodies I, %, 1, ^rv, V"^ 

The Ideaa mrm kaoen directly and cr^ 

in thewelTra I, 81i, 5, ar^» Y 

Intellect knows the quiddltaa of ^^ 

separated sirtistsnees I, 88, 1, orir. 1 

The body cannot act on the aool T, Bit, 6, arg. ? 

Thus «• are glTen a eet of auotoritatss alsost as a ruB« 

vAjBft, parallel to Platonic thcanr, anctcritatee whioh, lyjua facie. 


XtMrMii? fliSt 96 9t t«rf •» «f ti» ■"' ^» *» 

itl at 9lt«l am im-i. 

nr ■ -^ • mt »• •« ^ ^' ' ' '■" *-- 


Rtt9d» ait •loiter S»X.JJHbaq Mir^ «ir»«>l I0 aift^i** a aJt n«^l»«^«k> 

V A„ r/_T 

* **£ *g2g «d «jili ,1 ■ SMaiM ant lo r. ^ aid 

•^ -r« a *« ,1 

■ « — * b, - A^.r^^.< 


^5 lo r 31 


acMlt of a Platonic tnt«rpr*tatlon. Kh«t Saint Thoaaa, tbmrmterm, 
doaa in hmdlim^ th»a« taxis la to diaaneaffo then fron Platmiar? 
and turn than, by the taehniqiiaaa abow* ««artlenad, iato aupporta 
for hi a oan poeltian. 

As «a bwa polntad out, thera la ona e<arptia in which 
kttmUsm lAaoFB tba aala part. In ^.T., I, di, $, tha praUaa 
sancama the kroirledfla at zsaterial thinga in the rationaa aetr - 
nam * Saint Thoaas banrina bj plaelng PlatorlSB as tha nea— aery 
baekurowaU fhat be intenda this article to be read agaiaat the 
total back(^*ound is Indicated not only by hia overt jfJa—nee in 
the article itaelf bat alao by the fact t^iat In a parallel paa- 
aaga^ davoted entirely to an understaadiaK of an Aufnvtlaian 

text, be recanltulatea the entire hlatorjcal de-velopnent of tha 

iria Platonlca . On the fnrlnoiple «e hava previously saaa, t^tat 

tha flrat rude of Intarpretation for tlia Sanctl la tha Faith, 
SalM TbOBaa nointa out that Au^^uatiaa re;||ected the aaparata e3c> 
iatenee of inatarlal IhlngB and placed Vm Idaaa in tha DiTlna 
Had* imem^dm to thaaa tha hnan aafal kaoaa all thiiiga. I.e. 
all thinga are knowi in the rations actemaa . But in what 
flCMa? Not, aayn bolnt Thoaaa, as In an ob;)eot kaoan — this is 
r aa a r wd far tha ULa— rt — but aa in a prlaeipte of kaoaladfea. 
"Et sic naeaeaa eat dicara quod aalaia buaana eaola eagnoacit in 
ratlonlboa aatemls ciar quaroa parti ciDstlonaa oaiia cotmoscl- 
miB," Thoa a foraula, iigraaiwg with Saint Au(?uatine, ia reached} 
but this too still stands in need of deterndnatlon. "Ipana aala 


r ': ' > ; y ' ;■ AflQ-t^laiMf IMft 9tA VA 

itaJihr si •no al ourit ,iu» ■ «r«t •« «A 

at tiwra aJ^ ftf yjbot $va baJxoajtu. ai — *- -. '-^ + 

-aaq XsulUim « at ^m!4 43A1 m1^ x<f oaJCii $uA l£m9t ^otttt mdt 

(ft, . . M «• lo n» ot V^«YtAb« mj iiw h t*9** 

•rt* 'to * ' ' ^ " -^^-.- tirf^^wrf 

.xi> at r?«viu^ f»d$ iiwi mtato^ vmottt MtaC 

witvti «fl oJ; «ft«bT ftdJ tw^cvlf; tax* msftd^ I«Ms#aiB Id •aflaiai 

•f^ : Ii« ohmM Imtm naetm .>M of •:v»tr9fa9K mbaJM 

ii^mmtML . "^•rf*«f MuBl «k« ^-x-* ^^^ 

ai €;tf^.t •» flvoKDi io*t(to f» oi efi ^wwdt iutm& r vM fvoBM 


liH»n lnt«lloetQaI« q«od ••! In nobis, nihil oat Aliad ouan ntu*. 
daa fMurtieioata sinllltudo lundnls incraati, in quo contlnentar 
ratloaes aet«mae." The flm and clear nolni h«re is that th« 
liawn I ntelleetualg lt««lf in us is a participation of the (ivina 
Tntellect. This is a standard ejcnression of the relation of 
created agents to Ood and mint, therefore, be understood within 
the pattern of th«> causes. The real qu«?st1on is whether the 
clause ''in quo continentur rati ones aeternae" is to be taken a0 
directly and fwmally the object of that participation irtiich is 
the intelloctaal llpht in us. This is to ask wtether the intel- 
lect contain!? s1<!dlit\idlnal detentlnations accordinp: to the 

rati ones aeternae . The i— sdi»tely subseouent text as well as 

other Tvissares show that this Is not the ease. Tet the Imsn 

JBtellectuale is the principle by which th«? jwdlating ci 
can detenaine our knowledf^e am, since it Is itself a partiei- 
pation i n the Inwen dlvinuig which does, as a matter of fact, 
contain the rati ones aeternae , we e Ji saj «iat the hunan soul 
knows all thinM In the rat^wies aeternae and, in this sense, 
it waiters little wheth(7 we sgj "quod ipsa intelllfibilia par- 
tldpentur a '^•eo vnl quod loaen faelens Intftlllf^bilia."" 
Mersover, the doctrinal lindtation, vhich is internal and cra- 
elal to tMs Interpretation — that the detenilBatl one of the 
intelligibilia mist cons f^on sense — is i wi e di ately etrenirth- 


by two sTippcrtinf? citations fron Saint Aufmstlne hi«> 



fl»t>p bittln ^ao £Mta \itldmm at ^Nn toa** littih^ 

tA$ ittLi- 9t &%ati intoq -vfio bnu mtXl 961 "* ^nmrfioi'&ii aenolivn 
aatr^ «d.t yo PoiiBqiBi^Taq £ »1 k» ill liMtfi * ' ' * * 

8« oaoicit ad 04 «t "eanTsMs SMwliiai luixMrit^aos aop oi* mo/aXo 

"l^^Vdi * ll«8l£ ai it •oclN ,aiiB »j»oa£aofaf «« Mjan»t95 aao 

loot uBcMd Kii ^ us? wr « { ttiU •ia.hton 

t«ariMi «>d^ as. ,ba« t>y»%/eia fKioKw m(^ n^ •S«Jtiftd IL 
-tM| «i£MillX£9jrot mmqi hoc - ~ ---"^ ^ (tm ir~**— il 
"•Af lirff'.JHIatnf fc-raiaa'* oaaarf iici/p iirr owl a "sai^atKiJraJbt 
>9i(9 iiae laoioifnl ai ffsi:iir «iiDili.>iaUtI Xtahxl^oii mU «'f 

(wU to aaaliaafamitab aH^ iaHS — woMa rf a' K M^ a l aM» oJ Xato 
-rfi>>fitn;.^« ^a^Arbctfv;^ at --i* mn^a meHU ««oa #k 

V. ^■ •■^•llaa 


Thm the whole article is « Tery delicately owuued deter- 
alnatlon of an auc tori tag of <^alnt AuRUBtlne, wtiich leaves Saint 
Thotaaa' doctrine distinctively intact, yet places it in verbal 
agre ea ent with Snint Augastine. 

NoWf one, at least, of the opposing theories of knowl- 
edge in the thirteenth century was that «l>ich has boen called 

"Auf^xistinlsne Neo->Platonieien, " a central doctrine of which was 

lllusri nation theory involvint; ihe rat' onafl aggggggm» ^et. 

8«ini Tbostas, in these articles. In what is a definitive and 
foraal ejtpositioo of hiasan kno«led|re, aakes no direct attack 
■pea it. tie rather places Plato and the n/ttmttmta in tho pria- 
eipal oppoeinf^ position and carries on a philosophical polenic 
agadast thsB. TIm imgastinian texts wnieh can^y the influence 
of Plato and could be used in support of a platonislag theory he 
iHt«n>rets awagr froa Platonisa and esteuRss, by various teeb* 
nlques, into his own body of supporting texts. I'roa reflection 
OB these facts, the strategy of the articles beceass oiear* 
Saint Iheaas attacks his platonLsinfr » versaries by destr«|flBg 
^''^^ ^tttionee through a critique eC Plato and d^urivae than of 
their auctoritates by an adaptive loierpretation, while aain- 
talaiBg full respect for the S— sti wtto aaiherad them. If we 
eoabine this vlth our earlier eonrlusioos eooceming the del tni - 
ftSKj^SKHS^S. *"** reductive chaiaeter of these articles, we 
can now ssy that Saiat Tbsnas saw behind the platonising syateas 
of knowledge, ultiwataly indeed, Mut very esne via Platonica . 

.•w»«fe tniirnfrT <r*#A»r JMi x^*^ « B^ •IstA^w alerfw «il^ -^'^ f 

lnia<i •fwael /f^/fiyr ,aBl>»iwii ^Rixb lo . ^itt 

. T ■aa^'^Mqia* ^luft Mtr in»r^ .^^^» 

.oHq tci^ «t 1 feaw •isTt avsaXcr v«i>*ii flU «41 flM|0 

MMMiilla^ adl rraw tfaitfr ftlSAl aMvl/MfisA «lf .Mrftf lu&tes* 

•'U9JL9 senooad Mi^/^ita 9(U U *->s1 '>c>ftrl^ no 

V> MiU Mrin^iite tea 9i«r» )o Miphl^jtv^ • HwKnA* t ; 

•aJbni BlMtm ^mli^ivnq-kitimt 9viJ^^9 an \^ ^• 

nsala^ aai4iiw.>«iq mM tat<i»d vaa MsMtT ^i»d >«(far ta« «« am 
•£2l2Ei2£l all •■»* Vwv «** « " . , j«iwa)4 1» 



One of %h« areas laid out for invesHgation in this 
8tu4y «aa that of the theory of the soul* Be shall, therefore, 
stocky tiiie theory in ftmctioB of the ratlo-positlo analysis and 
with att«nt5oB to ita relationship to the via Platoniea . 

The oriaary Platonic position on the soul and its nxAon 
with the body can be oasil^^ and briefly suanarised. The intel. 
leetual soul is a coaplete and perfect substance In its o«n 
right} its union with the body is accidental ant^ do^ not re- 
suit in a single being.' Mna^ there-ore, does not essentially 
consist of body and soul{ rather he is the Intellective soul, ' 

iiis relationship to the body ean be eiA>odied in the definition 

aniaa utene corpore . The doctrine is eomeyed in a aeries of 

standard aetaphorsi the soul is related to the body as a sailor 

6 7 

to his ship, as a aan to his garaents; aan is a soul clothed 

with a bodty. Stated sere teoimieally, the relation is that of 

-iK>bili , sotLely in vbe order of aovine osssality ana not 
at all in that of foraU. causality. 

This is the theory #iioh, tlirouffhcut his writin^Qs, Saiai 
niSBas describes as that of Plato and the PlatooisU. lot. 


XT »j9mmi 

nolao «fl &ns £iM« Mfl no iioiif»aq -t^no^.tlM t^Mif^'; ft IT 

•*! ill ^-wtTwa 6m * • t«#o« r - ' 

•loo* nTli'9*l£titf*t •At %i m4 isrilan |£0d» fur* ^(botf la ' 
no>«lirn«6 »M ffi totbcttes etf as* t^od mU «# tAfam slH 

h«d^Ii £0o« • iki MM is^Mrtt^i eb( oi nam ■ aid o^ 

lo i^d* si oBU&im flil^ |^£JUsill«ia»t •ram bmimti ^.i^ted « 4Sbt 

Joe hM ti^rjDkaasd gnivoff lo -^ ' tf at tl^-B^* *"" 


- t. -/(r\ 


dMpita Its ljti->ortmnee and its frequani apipearuiee in th« 
of Thoaas, It 1m neiMr reduced to principles or to a prior argu. 
■iVtat5on. fhar» is as text In visirh It ia aubcjttod to a rati o - 
posltlo analyals. It s^anda, tlisrafare, vitMn Platonic doc- 
trine as an and indepement r/oeition, in sharp contrast, 
to be sure, to baint rboaaa* aim Tien, jet noTer refutsd 07 an 
apoeal to sobb prior basic error of prlnei le. 

fbis, ho-iferery does not aesn tbat it is allowsd to stand 
vlthoot relation to other positions. Cta the contrary^ Saint 
IhcT'.r^- exDlores not oniy the oroper conseouences, nseessarx or 
masible, of the position but also its hannnioaB Integration 
■Hit the ftaxKianeRtal lines of tte other Flstoolc tileries. 

It is obvious that the Platonic theory will ba^ve none of 

thoee difficultios concerning the iaaortallty of the soul nbloh 


one concelTes ttie soul as the fom of the body. 
Since its relationship to the twdy la extrinsic , abviciDsly the 
dsstrtiction of the booy need entail no destruction of the soul. 
Cta the contrary, its attaohasnt to the body is so slif^t tbat 
ths way is left open for the transaigratiw^ or 'traasincorpora- 
of seolsy a dectriaa which the Platonists theasAlTea ez- 

poonded.^ Por the swse rsaaea, a Plstaaist wMld hold that 

•snls pre-existed their entry into Ixidiea axxl, if ha vers a 

christian, would torn this thteery into a doctrine of the inde. 
paisisMl snd prior creation of souls. ^ aot if imortality lost 
its ^siiML—tlr oharacter within Platonie throry, a Tory special 

-sob ainot«n aWxnir «iriollr«9«l} , ' * il ^ttrfjMfm < :* 
«^«<rt^rio9 firudt nl fOotity i btm tmtvt 

tat yffi bsAif)en ox «'MJhr am *«mmm' ■ *# «»im •d »# 

y . " ■ 'iq %o lo^ii *J^U4r taH« M»« o^ ' 

aaisnji^iat •xthmruMi sil ea£« i«tf noli 1 1109 «$» lo ,«£dieaoc 

to MDi« watf IlJtr T»*«*t ' "^ -'' - ^^» wi #1 '^ -^^ 

(toltfv iaioa adt 1» \#tUI^-BO«il tUt Vfhn»ntto9 or «aorU 

•tJiXKf ttii lo MMl wil W £tfo« Mli MTlMdoe •«» narlw tftm 

9di ' ■ "to ,of ^ " " •* •%!bvS «tt •! 9M««M«I«Y wtt " 

•XiMs ad^ ^ iwJ^#3u«t«»b «a f lain* bMts t^ed ad^ lo oo^^tMrtrmio 
iMi# ti^ll* M al ttiod wU oi Jtt VI •#» ,ru^tM9 •rt# 10 

lAi9«|« T«^» «""""■■ "' "' ■■'"'*' * "'" ->■'■•'-'■' -♦* 


4i«lculty wa pr.«»nUd whm the PlatortLsta att«npt«i io ex- 
plain wiv soul* ahould e^wr bacooB iim«r»ed in bodlas, (to 
Saint ITioraM' Tlew, tij« body, balng an •aaentlal a-'d Integral 
part of nan and related to the aoul as aattar to f ora, ahould 
eoatrilmte to toe natural perfection of win and of his forw, 
the aoul,^ For Platonlata tha union could only be aaen aa a 
state of Tlolensa/^ a degrading l«»er8ion In mtter and a altu- 
aUoB fro« which tiie soul should be freed aa e^qjeditioualjr as 


At this point, the tiiecry inteaxates with the tljoory of 

knosledpo, for It Is prlMTlly in the natursl node of huaan 

iBwsledge that iialnt Thomas finds the contribution of the body. 

•s perfection requires growth in knoaladge and tiiis sx>veaant 
paiantlal knowledge to actual kiuwrledge is, in aan, natu- 
rally de|>ei«ient upon sense experience and hence requires a aate- 
rial body/^ Ibero is thus a correlation betseen the natural 
unity of boc(y «d soul ^d-ch constitutes aan and Ids aode of 
tooaing — a 'terlflcatiai again of the general aet^*y»ical 
principle, aitege eeguitur esse. 3ut Plato cannot appeal to this 
solution, for he has astabUshed the objects of huKui tawmledge 
aa independent of aatter and haa naintained that the senses can- 
not be true eawea of knoaledge.^^ In fact, it is basic to his 
Tlaw that the eense world carawt yield truth anc certitude and 
ca«wt be objrcta of inteUectual knowledge. Horeaver, PUto has 
aaiatained aa iadapeadenoe of «atter even for the act of sensing 

' ,irMi1 Kill lo fexi* samt ^ m^ii'Mtne'^ le'mfaa actl^ «# »tiKf jhitiien 
„ 'td xLm klaen polfw «i^ 9imtm>i0im *a»l ' .XMMi 8d# 

^b9qxtt as b»M ad tififwffe A<o« art^ ifattfv aontl dolt* 

■ ^ . . ; »■•' . - . ■,»-.■ •. _ 

iti— »iM •?!« ftBW • ' -' " '—'" 

-»»•■ A aa^iivpA-x Mflsd fans Ao \^Mt 

8id ©* 9tsmd It *t ,^«tt *r ^^••^ '- — • te mmma «m# arf tea 

fans atiaiMrwo i«c d/cru bdtalt i«<nft9 nCw* aena« fit1.t ladi waiv 

sad oiii£^ «ie«9r»V •n^baiwotfi: lAo^tmlia^t lo ai^vt^io •^ -tofKaa 

-» 1)0 ^» artf «1 BBra tt^*-- ^ '■-^t im f— > -Tta* 


ItAttlf ; "■•ntir© eoirvenlt anl«ao teenndiw 9«lr«a»." Tho« 

la no operational dapondoneo of the Intellectual life, on 
the body, en aatter, or on aemlMe real5 ty. Thna the body 
■ahaa no contribution to the rerfeetion of nan, which la i»holly 
the perfection of soul. 

The setual eaae la, however, eren worse. Tf the aoul 
pa aa a— aa knowledge quite Irvlepenrtently of the body and of Ita 
experlencea In the sense world, how Is It that when we enter 
the world of wetter ard sense, we ai»9m to popsess no snch knowl- 
edge? Tt la sumrlslnt^ indeed that we possess aost excellent 
"WMLts" and yet are unafware of it.'' The Platonic answer Is 
tMk laBenion in the body r>roduees confusion and fo^gMffttness 

and that the soul aust slowly and with effort recall Its iraiate 

knowledge. thos the latt^n with the body la positively detrl- 

to the S(»il*a well-l)eln«r] It mist, therefore, be not orly 
Tiolent, that Is, afminst r^ture, but, in sons way, a pnnlsb- 
■Mt. -' Saint TttoBuia finds m> satisfactory explanatlMi adTaneed 
by the H j i t — l ste -•> altho^jgh, of coiirse, he recofnlBea the con- 

sistency between the theory of the soul and that of hoaan knowl- 

) ar 


edge. The »1atonle view reats en an orer-enrhasis of the im- 

BBatsrlality of the hunan intellect. 

The doctrine of plurality of forme and of souls ssrres 
also for a point of integration. Saint Thwvis joints out that 
iB holding for a nui^er of aoals in nan, Platonic theory -<aln- 
tains an integrated conslatency In two different directions. 


iuff ^V 

Xtotf «(^ lUBJY .tttlMV al^fHnM fiD •» ^v»iSm m (^|fM4 «f» 
^i;^<ft^ «t ioi'^' (iuw to ?»!7 «Mf> e>t fl0M«i<fH;»nos oti aeitan 

-Xvoml daea on «i»»ao(r o^ m*** m ,««(ia« brw «»t#WR ^o W<wv iM^ 

al dlno^r ^ trtMsMo ««i t«t ^o» '^ 

Bisml nit LLe.Ti9t ^tm Ksg x^Mla *im CB»a aiC# Jtil# boa 

_^t.**b xXavl^iasc ui the<* w<^ ii#lw anhw «W awff ^^.an 
. » toif a«f ,fln«ftamdjr,>a0» ^1 -•"■" '-Ha* •*Xmhi aH^ -* r„r,,v, 
•rfataoqr a (Ta* «ao« rr^ ^^iKf ,»ve4aa #anfsi|« lal Icrir «. 
ba'< ^ X^^ 1^^* ateril aaaMT ^1»)£ ' 

.noa a4l iwcteipsoav arf ««av.. . ^ ^iSBJoOiU — alaifM»#att atft^ igtf 
-Iwonsf nBRWf lo *■«• tea iMtn -adt lo \T©erf? art* tmrnCnd t 
-arf arfJh 1U» 9-T«»io tia a& a#a«^ watv slaoial't adt 


^i«a£IaJRt atngnf adt la y^U^ltmSm 
a^r^aa slDoa ^a twra aarM^ "^o ^Waii/I^f 1» airf^isob ad*? 
jBt« *i -8 .f» ^Al ^o ^toq a 10) aala 

motam t'»«ifl alnota^ «fl80 crt ftlaaa te vadwat a '»! jattbiad ul 


Tn the first plaoe, if a series of •pinitiaas asMt ba r«dao«d to 
«BfV<ir8 (snd not to fonoal causes), the dlversi^ sboold bo re> 
dtaoed to diverse «n-fers, arrenf^ed, to be inure, in a systaaatic 
order of subordination oorrespendini; to the order of opera- 
tl«», Fircai a different dlreetion, the plural itjr theory i» 

in to be hsnaonious. For, if all foraal perfections, 
as diTersely r.oncaiTed, nust be rodoced to ^livers* separated 
prinelples, it fallows that each formality v.iU be, within a 
gJLVHl iMliig itself, a diT«;ra6 eleaent. This, of coarse, holds 
good not only of the Icrels of soul but of all foras**^ The 

integration is «srohaaized if «a r— e wfc e a ' that souls also are 

related to an ideal soul after the sane aanoer an sensible 


perfections to the corr>'8pondinf^ Ideas* 

The theory, held by some Platonists, that certain eatio 
ties vediate the union of soul and body, vbile ii^MSsible vithin 

Thosdstle theory, is rcranted to be quite possible, if the 8e«l 

is a Dover and not a forn. Likewise, the Thoadstic position 

ittl% the soul is whole and entire in each part of the hodf ran> 

not stand, if the soul is only a mover* 

How the soul is not only a "aover," as those theses pre- 

; it is. In fact, essentially a solf-«over and the source 

of all motion in the corporeal world. Tills cosition presents 

contradictions in two directiona. First of all, it sppears to 

•tend in opposit'ion to . rlsiotle for wboai an oridnative source 

of noivsDsnt esnnot itself be aovsd and eertainl.Y cannot be self- 


Oi r^ jUxl ««ru|t 90 o-r nfe.-, ^ , J Qt tmumk 

i^taoJU«»1s»'T .X««?n^ X£« Tti «nol ^s t»iI •«( o*. : 

a flliti^iw .ad Iltm \iniMm-m1 doaa «a^^ ewJU»l *l ^MloimJ^ 

ad^ ^*^ ^. X£c Va ittd Jba>a to afflwel «(!» U xbK> Ior baai 
ana oa«L» aJUioa ^adl tA'lsiBecsn a« Til b»8cas4qn» «i ooilx 
fy ^ .. _ 9iU 'S»#1a 4{i(mi« ia«bl (M ai fct 

nbA$i9 afjttpwy^a^ oJLUv «V' ^ «k>Iiw aaLT . j eaJbf 

£ao« a(& tt «aXrfhaiK>q •itup arf «Nf A«#a»m •! ^X'»9^ »t^^ ' " 
oal^laoq o : atf/ ,ofth>M(AI '^^•mdI a #aa fms «>w«w » at 


r •leraie » jfMti at lotNi «tf# If «iNwf* AM 

-9«| aaaadil «aMt# aa "t^oroa" a vitao Jos a^ itr«a a;!* «b9 

•acusoc — ^ - ^-ttaa a xii*i . . »* *•! W I*' 

aloaae^ ool^iaoq aidT .SxCn^ f -> «<(# «1 - " 

of vusaqqa #1 «IIa la <la%it ,aaolspviti) tmf at aaeJtio-MMt^aoo 

-IX^a a^f lemaa xlalBi^99 boa Iwrev ad IXm^Y " -^- --_ ^ 


■ov»d« Saint Thous adopts a coonon solution to this prohira 
by reducing ibo oppoaitlon to a sera dlffarance in words. FlAto 
is refsrring to thought and >*ill aiian ba speaks of the soul -av- 
Ing itself I tbis iristotle also allows, even to iod, bat In his 
ISBf ua9e the activities o£ thinking and viUinit; cannot properly 
be eaUed "actions. "^^ 

But the position is likewise out of harmoiv sith the 
theory of causality attaohiag to the Ideas. Co this point tiaint 
Thonas is silent; the t«o theories are presented but never con- 
fronted. Both «re attributed to J^ato and the Platonici ; both 
are repeated, ^nerally, to be sure, in difreraot cMitezts) but 
they are not reduced to a miity. 

If «e exsMlne this brief review of the interrelationship 
of the various Platonic thieses and the texts witi<di sabetantiate 
It, we find, tlierefore, that the initial position on tti9 soul Is 
never derived fron or reduced to previous positions or princi- 
ples. > hile in t^» case of the via Platonlca Saint Thonas was 
able to translate it into a series of principles and o p posn 
tbMi, point for point, by an opposite set, no such prooedure 
appears here. On Uie other hand, tiie poeitlcn on the soul is 
ths basis fcr derivative positions, such as the plurality of 
souls, tbe isMortolity of the soul, and so forth, sons of which 
are attributed to Plato hinself, vh'le others are the theories 
slaply of sorae Platonists. ' Likewise, the poeition itself as 
well as the derivative onee are shown to ^e, at various nolnte. 


• ■t«I«to7<3 mt^ •# flol*«ld^ fwiaw's a «**riafaj nanrifT inJoif! 

^Jt»it irl»iT au'iti «C k milt vt vtkgxtJim ^iLinam^ !• t^omU 

mm xmm *md ^Jr^ rse mtmrnHf «mi v^ H«9Xte U 

9iB.kt eJxel k;^ bM — ad Tt I m/otwr odi lo 

Tallin ft^ lo Msu «ri4 n2 CLOlii .••Xqi 

•uibwxnq ii30« en ,iM •tiWMnB m id «ial«MF «A iodbea %mad>i 
ml IMS wU flo tt^tsk^ocf mi «!»«( im1^» ndr «0 .9wd ms«q<]A 


in hamony with tha via Plato "lea and ths Platonic theory of 
knonlmlflB. v^e conclude, therefore, that th« posit' in nn tha 
soul Is In Itaalf an Initial and Independent oosltion, a 
starting; -point at nnco and a theory, yet one too wMch Is ^en- 
•rally in harmony with the other basic Taato-^r views which we 
have studied. 

If we exarilne Sa5nt Thojnaa' analysla of his (mn position 
and his argunents for it, two things becr^ ^r-^dlately apparent. 
FHs arguaonts turn on the application of the principles of act 
and potency, of being and operation, of aatter and fora, to Tan 
as a coa^jcslte of body and soul.'^ That, however, which aake0 
the application of thase rrlnclploe possible is the assuMpiioh 
that ran is a conpoeite of form and natter, a true ontolorrical 
unity, ^ This assuB^tlon in turn rests upon the immediate anal- 
ysis of experiential data, the nriaary point of which is to be 
foand 'n the unity of roan's knowledge. 

If we now correlate this with our preTious conclaslcn, 
it beeooes obvious irtjy the fundanental opposition bet««en Plato 
and Saint Tho»as on the relation of soul and body canot be ex- 
pressed in an opposltien of sreneral nrinclples. The "fir*.rai 
prtnclples being used by Saint Tho«as slrrly <*o »»*• ^WPly ^ ^-'^ 
soul is a perfect substance and if it Is united to the body orly 
as a mover, "^hls ho linself actually -olnts out so often that 
in the last article of the question on the un'on of so»;l and 
body In the Staawa Thsolorlae, h« can say; 


«ir rf9ldv 8ii«fir olrolf I"^ tilaetf in»d»6 wSi fUTtw tnoorLMf ni xU^f 

.h^fi---* -• 

•iBflicA; ■*J <nrt ,i^t not c is ftfrf Im» 

oott ndS 9i 9ldtv ff|Iwrfn*T • — itf ^ »»Miif>iX«i«5(B ««# 

-Ijuw fil ecu ncKts vhun tnt^ *iP. no ini; 

9d xst ut ifdiffv ^e i^ilo<7 x'iuMi^: ^ -•' |CAit» tt t^iwlMUJL » t6 atiic 


,ix>l«vl9fs>9 toDhrwi^ tiM Afttt 9ltt» •«8lflmco9 ton mr tl 
otaXt iMtwt*^ 0ol^taocc}e iMStnmhmJ ^ y^ vaot¥^ r— ' fi 

9fif mt y^Jtm ^^ ^ xCqst* amtodf inl»8 '^ bMtf laiwf MlqlMrMtt 

>C2rio \fxMf «rii a& hmitmt sf tih tt hm sant^vdkus ^mIN*^ • af tttom 

^firfi fHk^lft oa tiKj ^ats * a a« 

bOB ItRM "to oohHT artl ov tibf*t»a[> mis to alotita faal adi «l 

rxM ten «»«1 ^ •*> Iff tf»<* 


Dicaodim '^ucxi, :lila jua (ijrUMi ft , si anina 

unlret-jr cnmorl r;L_ 7r , po; s t~dlcl n»«» nor «• « .f 

in quaiibet ;^iart« corporis.... aad quia aniaa ucitbr r r- 
porl ut foTBa , tiecagae oat quod ait in toto et In qualibet 
pari* cflrporis.T]^ 

UaiAt llioBoa' priDclplaa, Loaever mich tlw/ aay b« opposed In 

l^anaral to Platcnic 00084 rannot, on thla quest on, be set up in 

<^poBitioD to ^latonic prir^cipleo, beeauM the basis of BDpllea- 

tion la rswoved ty rjUto's initial assusptioo. Ihe spposltion, 

tbareforoy lies bef<:M*a these prineiplea, in the very deteralBa- 

I4|NB tliat t('<r soia of nao ia tiie fom of aan and of tbe body. 

Given itiis, v:ien tuct acirloa ol' ihoaiatie tlieses folios sitta the 

necosaity of logic and iMtaphysica ... quia fprasa nssa ss s eat 

fPfd...." Tbe divldinti line bstssmi Plato an oaint Thoeuus Ilea 

before ttus :teci«ion W3th its consequent detendaations tlarough 

principles. That tbo noul ia not the fona of tiie body eaa be 

■si st s ln ii if the intelligsrs bslongs tortally to ths soul alone. 

This in turn c^m be salntainsd only if ths sent ire bsls^^a to 

tbs soul alone* The prqjer subject — whether soul or bocty or 

bsth » for the act of ssnsisg can only be dstersined I7 iaawdi- 

ate aaalysis of tbe factual ovidence. The reeding of the fsrts 

dstemins siMtker the sentire is an act of ths eonposite of body 

and soul or of thn soul alone, whetiiar ■•« is 8iar>Jiy soul or a 

eosposite of bociy and soul, whether, conaeqaentl^', the soul Is 

oeoessarily the forn of cs« sad of the body, riere, then, ia the 

initial fosBdation) at this noii t Platr> and :>aii t Thaaas part. 

TMs opposition boc(ssa an opposition of goMral principles b>' 

dsvelopaMnt, not by reduction. 



«» T J . 


^ti»Ut9»sqi* ■''"' "^ ^ ' ■"r.ft* IMtUU ••o.t»X^ '• ■ ~«'"<^ii ai jioii 


to r — ^: Lum itai 

- .^b«ani v' b jfr vd \£flo cm* yiib !;>« mW *ui1 —- 4l*od 

« no XifOk ^Icfsila at nw tMUtufv i^acis X^^ok od^ lo 10 Jb*o* bam 

..X. - ^^ vO.. ^; ; X »Vf fc 


It slMitad bm notm6 tbat this axpoBltlon tma foUomd 
clo0oly ^.T.* If 7$ and 76. As wm tte caa* in a.V., I, (ili and 
9S» Iter* ie ■aiaAainwl throu^ t h a— qiMctioos a polni-by-polnt 

gppaaitlon to Plato and tte Og^gaia^^ — tloNtm being the main 

foil of axpoaitlon; their doctrines are handled in tbecretlcal 
continuity ind sra reduead likawiaa to the baaie point of cppo- 
aition, the misreading of the factual evidence aa atated in 
^•I«» ^» 75, 3, c., and S.T., I, 76, 1, c. It ie aignificant 
that in this t^rsslj ordered treatawitf Saint Thoaaa aL-noat en- 
tirely avoids tiie ccr- on Rotapiiorical expressions ( nauta navi 
etc.) of the Platonic position and consistently eoploya the 
■ore technical "motor-raobili" forawX^. 

F.ith regard to the baaic view of the tatoHua soul, we, 
therefore, conclude: (1) that tlie rat^o-poeitio analysis of the 
ttaaaaa reduces thea to a priaary ]!d.sreadlng of the experiential 
evidence and not to the via Platonic a ; (2) that the baaic the- 
ory of the aoul is therefore itself a prianry positio fron «faieh 
other poaititms floe, sons, like the criginal position itself^ 
comon to Plato aixl the Flatordsts; some, hovever, proper to 
certain Platonists; (3) that the ojF^HWltion on this point be** 
tvaen Plato and S.'t5nt Thonas carnot be set up, as in the via 
Platonica , by a series of contrasting principles, though the re- 
sulting theees ny ba ao set In poj nt -by -point oppoeition) 
(U) that th<* *rltlal alBroadlng of the nvidence aa well aa aaagr 
of the conse'^uent poeitlons are in harmonious continuity «lth 

ir .--9 mia mm my .^ixt 

aim «it» yiivrf «MMi *• ^iT' ' * '1 *^ '"^ *^^*'^ <^ aof^fioQCfo 
«oqi<|0 lo ^atoq 9l6ad «rf# oA b*^ •« ta» rK>o 

JtwaninsM ai «I •» «X «dT ,T ,.T.8 Hoi «^T .^ 

tiw^QlvciO INW ooi^Md': "i^iW**!*! 9<1* V> {,iifm 
,9Bttane(l '*tIt*)«s><9B»^<M^ Xsstrutii^f noR 

wt# la i> 1 ••** ^*»** <^) " -' ««»«*<««** 

«lX»»i^t n^eiteoQ Iiu7j:«i;i» d/k* mUX ,a«>« ,«ion vwl^laoq ^art^v 

oi »^^^w K «sno9 |«#tt£B(>^Ajn sA^ JvtA •#«£! ^ BOaaoo 

•otf ioioq ftlHi oo miStfqa^ mAS iaAi (j) i«}eH«f«f* «t«H«o 

xasa «s XX** oe oMMbtn? »iti lo ffltltu ttrii i. 


tlM via Platonlca and tho thaory of knowladfce but that tha eon- 
captlon of aoul aa tlie source of aotlon, indead aa a priaary 
aalf-oorlag aourea, is an irraduclbla poaitlon and ona which 
ia not horr-onixed with tha cauaality of tha Tdeaa. 


-fflo» mU iKf# *ud - ' -tA 1o ^WMNfi^ «if# host r * "^ ©br wrfi 



While tba discussion of ths Tlaionle Idf^as vas, in a 
sense* a diseosslon of separated substaneee^ there still re- 
■aine roen fer a specific in-vestdgation xtoSvfXIm rvhrle "seoa- 
rated subatanees. ' V'or o&int Thamaa himelf hae a series of 
dlseuasioas directly dealinf; with the nroblew froe this stand - 
ooint and incorporating phllosonMcal apnroachos to It, He 
points out that tijo idiiloeonhers have evplogred various arj?n»ents 
and that, in each case, distinctively different positions on the 
problem have, therefore, been reached, \ran7 tte philosophers 
cited, Plato and the Platonlsts consistently appear, llkswise 
•1th a characteristic via and a distinctive resulting r.attpm of 
separated substances* 

"e have already briefly shovn that the via 'T.atonj ca , as 
analyse'^ 'r) r>>aT^t«r Two, is forraelly HPs-*pnAtr>rt sa tho ''lAtnrlc 
ar gWBu t for the existence and nature of separated substances. 
However, we are now in a position to add further precisions and 
developaents, and tnJs will be done in Sort" i^n One of this char>- 


»' . .' ''V- •»;-.■( ■'.'»>*• "j::.-i 

•cq»«* 8L{«(irt d'* — '-- ■ 13 f Stilts wmmt 9Sfit^fJ9 • *«)1 < -iljc 

lo m1i««8 • sad IXeanM aftondT ;hi£s& idX ' .aooiu^rsc/ua omtan 
-briAla s,iil# hov^ aaldonci id^ iUI» jnMjMb ^(I^owiib moteauoaJtb 

•H ''^l o^ ■ rsoWOTwIlifcT wih*-- — ^ml har *-'— 

aintMo^'U stfof^AT b«xo-IJ^T*9 awsji nedqcaoliffq MtJ ^aiit ;fuo sj^rrioq 
•Ki no eno?;^reoq it:«^*ll^ ti[«irt#fMi(#s£b ««aBO tfs«i> nl «iaili btu 

«v4qotKtliAq wU 80(MiA .br-* ' — ^.trvuiS ,«rar; nrnUkriq 

aetwaitt ,^«9qqft xJEin»ta.^ slnowrol f acli bos o^sf? «bi»#i9 

Jo stvtt^Mq ^jOlSJJntrt atrfiantial' « baa sir 9(^«^t<ltfsnalf^ a iliiw 

,F *-<lpa b» fB t sc /a a 

«* «*.^ 1 *^ *** *»^ ctwona fX^.9tid -tba«il£ •r«il aW 

nfnoifii't arii m bc^^ngitsab -tUacnol ftl «oirT fej(|8d9 «1 bf^irfj^fii 

.aasfiA^tadba i>9imkx*8 "^^ — *•- - -"Vabca ad* «»'» *{> .. v>j.» 

bne anolalaertq terUnirl Mw or noc<t/aoq a «1 won 9n£ aw ,i[9V«v«>H 
-qaio sliit Ic aoD aotStMt al aoofi ad Xlht mid* beta ,&tfleaqoIevab 



Tn all thss« dl» c i M i e1 arm of ••p«rat««i •«b«iane«a, son* 
nr«8«ntat5 ';n Is "^Ten of an orpnnlsed MerarclQr of taliwr. In 
M*t of %ba torto this pattern la related foraally te a Bnmcittm 
arf^vMntetlon. In alnont all th* texta^ the pattern la "eon* 
strtjcted,* thst 1e, it la not alisply roport*»d froa any alniAa 
aoarce but is a sfiNMllla of alaaante drawn fra« Baoy aourcea. 
Mfferenees, therefore, appear both In the ar^aaente and in the 
hierarchlal r>atV:'ms, 

Sinre n -very late text in the He : ufaatantiia Sepawitta 
rontaine a vwy elaborate and full nreaentatlon, the Tarioaa 
elenente of thi> hier«cei(j. vill be atodied through atxbeacfiiant 

aeetiona of this rhapt^ in thensel^rea and in function of the 

De Sub.«itant<i8 *^g-p«tnit ila« 

Seetion 1 

The ?lateni e Argowent for the Vxiatenee ap<l Mature 

of tlte :^ parated Substances 

Koahere in the coanentary on the penteneea does tber« ap- 
pear an arguoent for the existence of Hod or of separated sub- 
ataneaa vileh is explicitly designated as Platonic. Thla ia true 
even of contorts where one aight expect seme reference to Plato, 
since, on parallel r»occurrencr in liter works, such a reference 
is made. 

Apparently the earliest appearu^ce of doTeloped argu- 
nente of t^i « ««ort under th«» m-^ o** n-si^. nr *y^t^ '^latonl sts is 
ia the Pe :'ot»»ntia . In ]}« i^ot ., 1, 5, £•, an arguaent is 


•£j[MilB >crut 5ioi!% lMiliR>q»i xl'ftf t9n nl it ««1 tudS *tb6Swtt$m 

•di Hi tac a^ciBtrcrtft «il^ at (Mo*' vMini «vt3t99«f^ ^ Manstalltd 

%XiKis*^ atf^^- --^.> ea 9dt oi Jxarf •*»! fw • •ania 

abohuFV •fi4 (Se.^^ta^atfviref:! XIu) Imh atano'^sl* i!:«ar « mRt»&mii9 

iaaoovaeim li^oo^ori^ italba^a ad IXlv jiiartBt»fn orii ^ at a a wala 

4ii^ 'io ootloMl At Ina aarJEaawdi at ■ la lijrt ii aM» %> «o£»aaa 

.A flolitoatt 

1 aiff 

-<■« 9i<ari^ B!K>b a'. ed^ oo x^mrwmsiwo wtiJ 

-c*j" ■>«**«■«< •« 'to ■«> rv»r. "^n A9fv9j^hr<* •*<t ire'* ^fn^rnjis-ui OS "latq 

r ■ • »..M-' - -^-''"'' 

^o; ^gmrrsJe^ aaraa j^r>ac a ano <n«b» ' 

t\r3('. 3ffa ^asf-aow '»^&X iii ftoaarfvnooani lalia^ra/; aa ««anJDB 

. ,. ■ .... -^ • ■ 

'■■.■■„' ■ "■ 

-aSTii baqoXa«^^ "lo a3«-^cacw« -^asil-w* •<W jJHrtriA'^A 
tt «^airK>l«n «W •» atBri lo ouaff art* Tabni.' ttoe aJt;tl "io B#nar 
be«x?o"iq 8i *oa»i7|ta wb ,.2 «^ »f «'£s£ 2£ "^ . al^Mfitf? ^ ad* 04 


for posltlrar A unliraraal eausa of ease and Saint Thaaaa anda tha 

litlon wltb the reaarki "Et lata vidntur ratio Platenia, qui 
inolultf quotl aata oim Miltltodinait aaaat allqua unltaa noi ao- 
Vtm In mmf)r±B aad atiaa in rmwum aaturls. ' Ihe tone of this re- 
■ark aoffi^aata that ^aint Tlioaaa ia not certain of the Pla tonic 
oharaetar of the argua»nt. In fart, the baals of hia attribu- 
Mmm aaaaa to lie in tne relationship of the arguaent to Dam 
principle, ante oaiw auItltudlnaM Maat allqua unltas , of which 
It could be a apoeifie dairalopnant. Yhla prlnelole la foond, aa 
anehy In rior^lus and la ao Quoted In a alailar context In the 
•aeMMrtary on the Secteneeg . Hare It aaena to he fartter c«- 
flnad h7 the rhraae n<» aolun In nmoerla aed etlaw In rarwi aa- 
taria , ahieh coea Indeed appear to refor to tha aort of Inter- 
pretation the principle abonld receive in the llffht of the eon- 
nentary on the WetaphyBlca , However, the arruaent Itaalf re- 
Miiblee tha later exnoelt-^nne only In teovlncr froa a "comunl ty" 
to a alnfle unity ~ the ooeratlva Idea throusfa vhlcfa the aove- 
■ant takea place la that of cauaallt/, not of knovlediTe or ab- 

In the .SiMMa Theolonlae where a alallar (thonali not 
Idantlcal) arguaent, tumlBR on participation, oceara, the 

principle neceaae eat ante o— wi aultltadlni pcaere unltat— 
la introdueaf) aa a conflraatory auetoritaa froa Plato. It la 
•bvloua that thia prlndpla, atatad vlttioat qualification. 
Ilea open to aiy oeterainatlana. Kor, in a aanaa, aa Saint 

.^s a»n sfitistf mpti* 3m^9» K»fBi»ii*lim s^mhio Wim ^^tfp t^ 
-er alilt lo ^«ii»^ «fT **«l«»iMi «M«t fi^ anet* tea ahtMBW «1 aatf 

a* ^bm9\ ml 9lilioaJtVl . ^•mi* 9lVtO»q« » •d DI0O9 JJt 


-*■ «»^Wi at fftfero tat » ^?<WJ*t ftl »i»* 22a •^^ •** V* *"U> 
-•i»*n4 lo ii»8 a(W '*t toitw oi t^mr^ bMtei wot? 4»l|hr teijMt 

-OOP Mt^ >i ^' <t ni •VJhM*^ tllMD<l« •Iq^SflHf Mf> noi^Ji^^^KT 

.•^ lC»»il ^nM(.rta s^ e iBww u iU . «3lay<<|B<»aM ad.) no '^^u.Nien 

.•«oa arli dstrt* Mbl -* T^inv alsfflB « oi 

-da no » i te j . lo ^uH mi t j(<Mr .tnoo 

ioa dHfloxii) isXlnfa a anoita «(f^ at 

ax J I .o^Afi asni^ t c'o^'untl.ioa a sa btfWbartSai aJt 


hi— Uf muurkt, the z^adnetlen sf tiM mater ^ unity la 
tlM ooHNB cQMMm of philosophDrs*'' ThB real point lla« in 
tte praelao waj In which this reduction la brought atiMiii and 
tb» nature of the unity thus achieved, fthil? Um De P otantia 
text itaelf in tti« phrase aed etiaa in rervai naturla wmy avtg- 
geat a reference to tlw Theory of Ideas, the tentative expli- 
cation of the ratio ^latoiiica seoBMi involved in aoae of the 

aablgulty of the f?eneral principle itself. 

A second expoeition of the ^latonic arRuaent la pre- 
sented in De Pot., 6, 6, c. Hare aisrain there is a •-.^{ge8tlon 
of the tentative character of the explanation, for, vhile the 
arfn^nent of Aristotle is lntroduce<i vith sssursnco "^rlstotelea 
autea hae via inprobavlt eazo Isc. the position that all sub- 
stances are cornorealj," the Platonic ratio is presented thusi 
"Teriia autea ratio potest sund ad hoc ejc sententiis Platoni- 
eorua.'' 'fhis arguaent aovse froa participated esaa directly 
to a eubstanea which Doaaasaea tka plenitude of being j easen - 

Tn both these caaea the argunsnt is Idantlfled aa KLa- 
tonlc with Boaa healtation} in both casea It teradnataa at 
Ipaoa Seae which is, in the s«cond case, very clearly the unifi- 
cation of perfections and not the si^Mlstenee of a single pure 
foraality of belmt. In neither eaao is t^ie arRuaent eritlclzod; 
^ i!2 f2^*> ^* ^' £•* ^^flX' liatinf; the rati onos of Aristotle, 
Plato and \vlcenna, 5aint Thcaas concludaai ^Sie ergo rat j one 

■ :^4» *it5- ■j% •*!»# d!»i*i fll tar »at*w«« fld# 

•BO« ^ diT fld^ at tl^vtk irxaA 

«rf* r - - - ■ ■ -n ita^ \» r- 

• .««tq at ^ , .. ais^al'' «M lo nvMJNM^qx* ttn9»£« A 

r " 'ffv « al •««}# nlmum m&Ki •» ,^ «d tHtti 2? '^A h*dNse« 
9^ m£tt9 ««•! « > adJ lo •» ;r««it mLf lo 

•luoJtXH all4a»JF9M »» sod (JA <■»« ^M4«q »kiMn 0w#im •iilwC'' 

MtJ •9«s<j««M»^ dohw eOftititBdat » oj 

-sTT as baJtl^^nabl^ al inanm^-ui 9(f^ aaaaa eaadi ilfatf ifT 

to •a.taoKrT** *t aitaaa 4ia<f uJt |r> ittMt iC#/« 9tn«# 

-nica aAf itXi^aXo TW t^*co ^Moaaa wU ml ^ni ttothr atag ygl 

•w^ aJ^l»»1la aana^aJraAra Mi* iaa feaa aaot^oatowt la r-"^ — 

{baalati^hfe* J «(i al aaaa t^i^a si ••3te<f la o) 

(OXio^aiiA Id aa«o^<hrt ait^ ia*^* t._ ai 

8«K)jt.^at asaa aid" saafvlanoo aaaMlT Jaiae ^aaaaalri ftan otaXf 


d— onotratwr mX flue tomtur quod ania eoni a iise craaia;" 
'B^M* ^'v ^« ^» £•• ^^ p— Itlqpei of Plato and ArlatotXa 
ar» lad»wi canparini b«t tte fiaal dctcnslnation Is baa«d si«< 
plT on tha .-'alth: "Sic orgOy lidal writatea 8«qu«ndo did- 

If non «e lay thaae texts aloneslda tto alabarata da- 
Tvlopaent of tha ratio in tha h9 aub « 5ap ., 1 iii-7i) 2 i6i, 
•iPtaln striking dlffsreocas iBasdiat^Xy aypaar. In both 
works there Is a reduction to tadtj mad the establisbHsnt of 
separated Incorporeal subatances. In De Pot., 6, 0, c., and 
in Uw D« 3tib. :^p., 1 ih~7ii 2 L6j, thsra is an outline of 
the resulting Merarehy of beinct. But now in the later text, 
contrasting witb tbe others, there is (1) a f>oeitive and 


straighiforsard identirieatian of Uie arguaeni as Plato's, 
(2) a clear ocut recognition of a basic principle, of its asan- 
lag aad application, (3) a positive declaration that the oper- 
ative priooiple of the arguasnt is not efficacious.' It should 
bs avied that in the last secticn of the ^ ■ ubstantiis ^iepara - 
tis, the r<octrines of the philosophers are brought to jvAgBsnt 
before the Faith and that in ths light of the 'aith tha floal 
4atond.iiations are there aade. But in the first section, the 
via Platonica is declared invalid as a natter of rational prin- 
elple. The differences beteaen the first two texts and this 
last one aeasurf^s, in a «ay, ths aaount of reading and reflec- 
tlon w^doh lies between then in baint ihoaaa' life. 

le Ai -M hmm X^tna oJf ^ a fl nadv 

«Ma# wJ'Ai Mit mt voH .- - 3^ lo xfldiMwM Sial'Itfwn wit 

-4Un^ SamtUm I0 — ^^ a •• MXnnt toiiUCMrf* it / * 
••ttr • -"•■ *R*»2 itt awl* r - 

9l r J.. A.-1 


Indications of fpMrtnr praolalon r.«n i«l*«d bo found In 
other oarly vorka. In a parallel contort in tte Contra 222*1" 
laa , whMre Saint Thomaa la diacussinp the nuahor of th« ••pa- 
rated aubfitancea, be oxpraaaly ra;}«eta tba Platonic d«t«ral na- 
tion of th« separated svbstaness as bslni! sp«ci«s of natural 
thin;;8 (which la a loideal conclusion of tha Platonic Intamra- 
tation of tha arpruaentative prinelplas baa«d oa "•aagnodty* aad 
"participation'*). In th« Pa Vsritata> ha likenisa axpreMly 
rajscta the Plato- Ic fans of the reducti on to unity and uni - 
fondt^. HosNrrar, naither naasaga contains an axact detor- 
■laatlon of the nature of tho Platonic arguiaent. But when va 
eoiM to the later works, nherwer, in contexts dealing vlth the 
senaratod svbatanees, the arf^WMnt of Plato or the Platonlsts 

is presented. It is consistently that ratio which we have 

ealled the rla Platonlca , ''t la partlciaarly IrforesslTe to 

find that In the fonr wco-ka which deal to such an extent with 

tfaa separated substaoees. Saint Thoiias takes an early oecasim 

in eaeh to lay down the Platonie arcuiaent as a backpround 

Jtist as he does for the theozy of knowled^ In the initial 

articles of the eighty-fourth and eighty-fifth questioas of 

the Priaa Pars . In other words. Saint Tbonas uses in thss a 

consistent deteralnatlon of the asMguities of principles and 

teros fTonerally attributed to Platorlsts. If we ask then what, 

in the lirht of the later discussion, would he the determination 

of the principle necesse est ante oanea Multitudinan ponera 


nl bosol •i ? t»fztfto lo 

- g.j) acW nl i:a»ifioo ^ r b rf aci^v xi'st* •sedJo 

XLttKTtiff VBbiitiitl mi ^ <$ cS. '<?• 

~te>^cl3 ^ontv fill aeilAJAoo « ^-wvwhj!! .^ 

aw 4f «Ar' r^ Bi(^ !• «7. * le «R>^tjsai» 

•VBlf •» t H^ 


A Md# nl MW MMsdr telJiB ,«bmv tadH aX .rMi >Br»rt «i# 


unltatOT j «• would be forced to state It In teraa of the princi- 
ples of the vi> .latonlca an: would thereby reduce It to the 

argnaente of the iiet^ihyelce bcaed on the eiiiiiiie la Multla and 

the participation in partlciilAre. And thfs deteralflatlon of 

%te artnFtent, by the saae stroke, deterwln^s its conclusion so 

tint no^ only is the resulting noeitlon of separate subsistent 

soeoips of material things unacceptable but alee the noeitlon, 

99 far predeelT as it floes frea the argument, of a One, a 

(load and a per se -sse . 

All this leaTeS) of conreey the Platonic auetorltatea , 

statements both of rr1.nc5'-'le and of oosition, open to Tarlous 

datermimtlonet as ee nave seen in \.tiB rery striicLog case of 

Plate's flood. And thie determination can be carried out by a 

l6 I'* 

■dbiple redefinjtion, either exollcit ' or iapllcity ' as well 

•• hgr adaptive aris^umentatian. CcnaaqnsBtlyy therm ie no con- 

trmdletlon in saying that : alnt Thomas rejects the mode of arsu- 

■mteilon by which Plato establishes his unities or unity and 

yit tiait he approves the principle of Plato: neceese est ante 

— aem multltudinem p o aere mdtatem < 

Han M ^^«i <•» ^$t9tXcim iMf^ie .a9i#bTil«b«n •X^vits 

It * 

»rfn« ^M <o>af< 1« •XolasJhHi «itf «mo'Si^(a ad. JMl^ 4a( 


Saetion 2 
D— Pair , Intellectii« P«tgmn> mad \hm Anlap Mundi 

Saint kagaatiniB reportvd thai ivt f ooad tb* do«trliw of 
Urn Trinity propoe«d in the mritiiu^B of lbs Platonlsta and tlnui 
pfTovidad tte asdlwal thsologiana vltti a salting far eonsldar- 
ing the probloB of rational knowladga of tha Trinity. Tha doc< 
trine to urtileh .Saint AagvBtine rafarrad aae that of tba triad, 
Daaa iiniai— !■ « the aana or intellectoe patamna and tha aniaa 
ufaieh aedlaval acholars found described also in liaeroo 

bins. Abalard oropoaed the aaam axannla and fran it arguad for 
tha powihllity of a rational diaecnrary of the Christian doi^aa. 
In the thirt«>©nth century »e find a eteflnlte and conmon qnaation 

devoted to tho nroblen and regularly dealinn with tha Platonic 

offered by Saint Augustine and Abalard, It is in this 

titm that the triad first appears in an early text of balnt 
Thoaaa." It is explicitly referred to in eit^ht subaequant texts 
of which seven are devoted to Trinitarian discussions. In view 
of the history of the question and tha ataricarG use of this ax- 
aaiple, it is, of course, not sumrisinf; to find it repeated, 
with little or no variation in such contexta. Now in the doc- 
trine of the triad, the Ideas are located within tha aana patyru^ , 
and it is, therefore, in contrast to the theory of anbeistant 
Idaas re; orted by Aristotle. It is noteworthy, therafara, thai 
awan these standardised eantezta ahow a certain variation in tha 
authcrshio aRsl^rned the doctrine. Kor, while three early texts 


a bfis JUL wl# «; 

to'i bavsts il «rt¥ tats •Irmtosm •«»€ vd^ :w«NKf0%7 ^uils^'iA •wrJM 

.c»9ol» dwilmlmF) Okt^ 1« ri*«»9isih lBnii}t:fm^ • !• DtiXl<f>«80a «1# 

itotSwtap ap— a baa •#^itab « tell •» c^a^s* — . «I 

•mt at «t - dA boa wtiiatr^ijA ^iiUa X9^ b«irK»llo <■> 

*mi»d lo «»•« V ^at tnmmtqfi iwUl tmttt M^ *»At m 

^mix»i iAf^* ai •# '^^Uajtm el il ^ 

«9iir aX ' •anoinasroalh sml'Uii^latYT si itt t wn to «nw «»rMi rf»id« le 


^h9Sm»n9^ il hell o^ Jl«tle^nft«r« 4wt ««^ .ti #1 v^^Gepat 

-30b 4M^ Hi «dH ,»tx9inoo flntm at aoli^ftt'BRT on « ■tii^ilX ifilv 

ls»l«ladkra le tw«^ «(^ o^ lM^<lnno ol «*wViMi(i ««jt il Iwm 

i«di ,(r»l9Y«fl^^ '<fincnr»toa ttl il .alioii^lxfc ^ beJii -ibi 

•f(i at a»t$iUrtMv BlAiiao « vd..* ^tx^^uoa b«&lfyi«2)0«i« eeeiii a«f» 


attribute th« doetrlna to Plato, in all ihm othara it ia at« 

tributad to tbm Platonic i and, indaad, in what ia probably tha 

lataat of the* all, il ia glvan aa the r>oaltion of "alii Plato- 

niely" in explicit contraat to lato who is said there to aa> 

sert tha aubaistenee of Tdaaa aaparate fron the Di^na Mind, 

It is only in the jje Potontia that wo find a text aa- 

plooring tho doctrine in a diacuaalon which is not eonceraad 

with the Trinity. Thia ia the text we have alraa^y diaeuaaad 

aa praeanting tha first diseuasion of Plato 'a arguaont for aapa- 

ratad eubatancaa. Hare tha Platonic triad la worked into tha 

pattern of a hierarchy of being attributed to Plato, thov^h cla^ 

■aota of the hierarchy are dram fron other sourcea aa wall. 

Tha levala of baing preaanted arat (1} daua pa tar, (2) patemua 

SSUMStiSSuf (3) subatantiae unitae caelegtibag corporibua , 

iU) the daaiwiag , (5) aniaae hwlwia. (6) aniaae anjgalluji . 

Clearly tha first two levela are drown fraoi tiia doctrine un^r;r 
tUwmsaion. But tha significant fact ia that in no aubsaquent 
pattern ia this triad, as such, enployed. 

Thus, whether we axanint the aeries of standardised 
Trinitarian texts, or the toxta in which Saint Thonaa ia aetlvaly 
■aiti pttlatlBg his aources into a synthetic pattern, we find tha 
doctrine af the rena interna abandtxied aa an authentic doctrine 
of ^ato (tbou«;h it renaina a doctrine of aoae Platoniata), and 
aa intex*pretati on illualnad by the ''^*^p**||f4T ^ Aristotle and 
ra in line with the via Platonica aubstituted for it. this 

-#« ul Jl rtMfie fM Urn al ,eial«^ oi •dhcf^cb ndi oittdbtfi^ 
b«n»o«oa #oa «^ livhkr sr tb « at miI^'}*^ mI^ ^- ■' 

m («) t2 (^> ••*• ' ........ 

^ :re Oft Hi ^«4;t Bi #9«1i «»ttOjt?liR|J^ ttdi 4a6 .r •.{!» 

«t^ tjoiX em «niOi/i»4 bt. ... u oJnl fimasuQB - - ■ _ 

iMia « ^a^sf. ^oiftI^> mom lo oeftlTMli a latiMRii 4k ^ 

mJtsK ai tot b^iiSttedtm ^~ ^.r^ aIt ecU Aflw call mt wmm 


doctrine of tha Platonic triari do«8 not find a panwrmut ^ilaeo 
te'^Salnt ThoiMQ* synthoa^a of Plato'a doctrino anrf »bV*« »'o 
tf|V«lfl« contribution to toe final for* of t)>e Platonic h1«r- 
aorel^F of bolnc^ 

Section 1 

C«-taln presentations of Platonic theorlos of Providence 
are emmUund here beeeuse thej r^nerallj deeeribe a BBdlate<f 
sort of Provldenco and, consequently, l«ply, «t least, ease 
MLerarchlal arrsngeeent of separated suhetanees. * standard 
eutllBS of Plsto'n theory is ^ven in a text of WswsiHi vldch 

Ineludes three levels, God, the seeondary «rods who laowe the 
eeisstial spheres, and the dajmones. 

In three texts, the earlioet helntr that of the rpntre 

Gentiles « Saint Thomas repeats Neaesius' description. The 

point at issue in the Contra Qentiles is the extension of Provi- 

dmmm to s1nfl!ulars, and Plato is adduced in support of it thoufsli 

ha is said to have explained the oneration of Providence as tak- 

ixK plsee tfarooffh sediatif^ eanses. Here, however. Saint Tbonas 

■idi ^iHit Plato still aakes Providence depend on Ood, since He 

has afipeinted the pods and the daeaones . The terts in 5.T., I, 

^* 3, £., and S.T., I, 103, 6, arg. 1 st ac 1, concern the 

point and Saint Thowtss aerely rapeate the text of Nsasalus and 

rejects, without qualifleatior, Plato's nodlated Providence, 


«niCcr 1 bftn .ton (Nftb t»ttf ^ftti>i&^ ^9 to cifH106b 


t *«t#j»e ' '■ -•-• ' ' ' • J 

or i1[ ■ 

ear. ^ lo ano 

-Tkat Its •on«^.^m^ "io no^^jmirrt) «it hmUftxjKt wmHi «a btas •! «( 

•H •gsl* «1«0 ao IWNKTAb 9ifmi>2^ro^ iwlwif X££»» or«JE9 itailt- obiw 

,t t.2!»5 "^ «*»•* erfr . ^ ad;? hoc abas e^ l^tJntotfqp e»d 

9i3&8 ocf.t ir»anor> tX ^ £« X •}Q» »* tfOI ,T « . « %•£ «f 1*5 

tatf •fflaMowH to iwi* adii atoAqrt xS^'Mm Mwotf? tntaB bm Arutoq 


■era WB are (laalin^ with a eoowitlonai r«f^«tltion of a 
t«art «Meh has hmtmim really a tag dMarlptloa of aediattMl 
PrmwUmnen, Mm oaae» huwmir , la different in other torta* In 
3.T,, If llOy 1, ad 1, the dlaousslon turns on whether. In ad- 
All nf atari nt^ the cor«^oreal world the anmlp laervaraited aubatanceaj 
have, with reapect to Tarlooe types of thliKta, a relationship of 
goiremance whieh is founded on their nature. Plato 'a answer la 
drawn from the Theory of Tc^eas. Accordlnir to ^lato, the sepa- 
r(it«d sabstaaeea are the ratlraiag and ep eciea of — wiMi thtf. 
It la, th-refoTf , in Its very nature that e«ieh Idea should, ac- 
cording to Its own foraallty, have an Iw^fedlate eoneem with the 

e«rresr)ondinr rwrtlrulars. This la no store rerwtltlon of a 

conventional tArt; rather it adapts the Theory of Ideas to the 
ffoest^on at hanri. The medlacy of Plato's Providence rests here 
on the central doctrine of Ideas and their relationship to the 
sensible worlri. 

The text in the Do Subetantils Separ>tlB is of a irmIi 
■ore eynthetic character. It follows, indeed, the fNmeral pet- 
tern of the Wensslus text, espoelally in regard to the function 
of the daemonea . Rowver, it is stron^i'ly denendert on ^oclus 
and froii hi* is derived the fomal operative idea of t.h<? treat- 
went t najsely, the relationebip of Providenre to the retln b owl - 
tatis . The function of the levwla of beinp' In ^ovider<c« are 
derived fron the •^ervasive nreaence of b onua . In nod aa Ipeea 
Bonow, in all others, by oarticir»ati on. The context here is 


-be nl ^rr^titsdn no apxiJ ttoisnmtlb 9AS «( te |X «<m «I «o2^ 

-;i« ti^itio^ sAfel 4»s» ^Mfi res^iB n»7 «#t at ««nil0t«<i^ ,«l ^ 

rttL} Ail* m»9ao-i aJ aa mtmA ^-f^tUmnol m* a#l ei vittnoa 

• !• i<ol^M«c<n mae «« si atifX .^.^xtfai^taq sni:.... 

rcMf a^va^ asiaLivo^ a'a/sn >• x;9«M>«n nad is iw^iaKip 

a<l4 pS eriilpMi^^aXani ii«d# taia ■aafil 1q M^i»«afe imiaao ad^ no 

JbX'BHr aiftf (atma 
itotot «, 1? . i-U arl iT«k^ ari 

-4*q lAiaaas mit ^b^fbnt ^wmJUL^i iX Jtmismvtto 9.- >. 

naliotttft tit oi tra-ga^ nl ^fiXataacfae ,<tacol avlaamsK etf# ^ ma^ 
strJ^rot^ CR> irwdoo^^b vjC^inoti^a el il ^naaaiaiH lo 

■.4ii«-$tf arti lo B9bt m~ -. Ima&t mU tmttwit ai mSA maiA imm 

-J^ *5 *i* a* •'Viwbjhpoflrt '*• <|iffefR>ile£air a^i , " 

ai0 aootttiiilTo^ nf 3t0l«(^ ^o ei^arol M^^ lo f : eifr 

aMjagl ai» iHM' alt «6JE9^ ^ ao ua aaT H aYleaartaq; acit aerti bmtiah 
?1 wMri *rp#«cm aKT •»«vlJi>^t'9l#<R^ ^^ jSlwiMio iXa Bt 


one of an adnptlw Intarprotatlon of poaltlonBg In rawperatlon 

for ths use of Arlatotlo and Plato a* eormctom of eabseqtient 

■ ^jr foUoaiiig out ti» inplicai? ons of "^ood," :>aint 

iB able to brlnfj to{«ither In a eoacordant nnd taiob,1er. 

tlonable Interpretation the pooltiona of ^Tato and Arlatotlo. 

Tha moat alf^if leant of these texts Is, therefore, 

3»X«» T» 11^» 1» 5^ 3» '<*• *>•'• •• ha^"^ « ^•^ *^* l^" clearly 
eonatructod by analysis of fuadsnental theory and is pre ss n tsd 
wUh ftanaal crltlcisis. This text is wholly consistent idth the 
precise deiaantie of Vya via Flatonira . The Nensslus texts^ as 
slnple convention taFi:>quotationB are obviously of little lapcr- 
taaee, while «ie J^ Sobs tan tils ^^oparatla is, areordlnt^ to 
Saint Thomas, adaptive aode of Interpretation. 

Section li 
Tho " Oood" 

As ire have seen^ the earliest synthesis of the Platof^c 
Mereretcr of being — that of rje Pot . , 6, 6, c. — Is nodeled 
lar^ly on the retis -'kww - Anjna triad. In this synthssls the 
•Oood" and the "One" are not ?<»nt5oned. In noet of the siAtse- 
qttSBt elaberatlons of the hierarchy, the "nood" and the "One" 
stand at the top, as the first principle and the hlrhest Ood. 

Slnee the "Oood" has boen stodled from various -^olnts of 
view, nneh of what foUoes will sieply resioM previous conclu- 


aoJk^«'24<|c«t{ nt en .j )o noltei^c* !» im ^o aocr 

inisarpwtdtrs \o ra»Jh9«Tio9 ac> o<a£1 bee •lios»lii Id mm fidl <ail 

t£ ^£d# ^a# u nvMi •« vn>d i0t «f i|^ «X ,0X1 «X t*!*^ 
•dl iMito JoMalMiw .^XXo<f« «£ ^v^* » -n. •aautottl^. iMTSol li^Jbv 
•loqiii a i-vtfo ««• ouf^-ssf avk^tsavn^o «Xqn£« 

ii «K>Ala»e 

beX«bo« ai — .2 v^ «& •«d!2l fH ^ <^*^ ** B)*^*^ ^ V^ ' 
wa «- ■ 1 mtds Hi ./5»^»i £ ' ' 2 •** •» xX«9PUkX 

>MMlua «» ^ laon iS J^MtoUr.m ttxt 9m "•rC- «• •'teeO* 

"oflO" ««ii bo* boot)" «i# «x^ Actf !• «CK>iw 

' saarA kmttxtSn. nMM5 asd "LooO" «> 


Uatp ttm first oxollcit disciMslon of the Platonlr. the- 
ory of the "Good" occurs in the ]jo V<rtWil» and this in an elab- 

orate and extonded fashion* 

baint Thoaas lays dom as Plato's principle "«a quss 

possont separari socundum InteUectuB^ ponsbat etiaa aeeuadiat 

•ssa separata. The application of the principle is developed, 

in accordAaca with his interpretation of the first book of the 

I, through the kmj exanple of hoao - hoao 

For "nan" is "eoors<m" to Socrates and Plato and can be tuKler- 
stood without understanding either Socrates or Flato; therefore, 
there oust be a separated "nan," a cannon Idea. Pushing the 
argusnnt in ^^rtoct parallel, he moves ^oa particular goods to 
tno idea, the per oe bonusj which le related to all particular 
goods by participation, bince now this Idea of the "Good" ex- 
tends to all thinf^e, it is the uni\per8al orlneiple and henee 

thua the "Oood" of Plato's hierarchy la seen to be es- 
tabliahed precisely by the argusKntat^ on which we have called 
the Tia ^Tatonlca . The separated good to which Plato arrlTes 
by this argunent anst, therefore, be conceived, as in this 
text, to be the separated connon idea above all particular 
goods. Tn areordanco with this ex-^osition and with the nrlnri- 

ples on f^leh it rests, the separated Good of Plato Is the ccn- 

5 6 7 

■on Idea, the species, and essentia of goodness, the Idea 

8 9 

abstracta , a specios idealls , the first in the order of 


•dslo Oft £vi ' n»f<:i ,;«> 

. v... . .',,,. tmMtiti^ ir^'yrj.*^'? bam eJiMo 

M«9 •»" ttCqtaotm^ li*ft^ alS ;«» CMb nviX ■■^^ttncjt- > 9iUM '^ 

^ .6«bl noanoa « "«« 
oJ 9b^^ •miit^liVif^ an'Ci, coverf 9ff t^**'^-l^wq oi it. 

uIvai^Tftq lift o# t»mHJm->. »4 :4;>:.» . ftfj.u-4 m jag edi ««ftbZ fdt 
•X* "booC aiii lo ««i>I ahf.^ «oa vania .tiotleqiaJ^inaq xtf «ko«a 

-M 94 oi o»9« at t4anco%oJH o^o^An lo " mUt «MfT 

^uIvot^VM; lift ovoda soi^l mamuao baimtaq^a au4 ad ai ^ixmi 
•loaJLv? arii 4l#t« bna noi^iaaqxa oirU d^Jbr aasslMoaM itf ••koftS 
•di ai «««r) >o bmO JM<£ia^as ad^ «aiMrt ^i .laMa no a«iq 

fgfki eti# ««isMibao8 ta £a s 9tit "^md oae 

o 8 

'io tvino aili at itntt ndi ^fttffo^i ■^- ■. ■>«<ja a t^loCT^ada 



••T>arat«d n^'<ttl99p th» ratio and •aaentia of all thlnps which 

part^c^'^«t• <»oor1n»«i!, tho rrlawt rtw tract taa in th« tiattem of 

r«lflxfd abstraetlc — 

Ktm tMs »'V)od", 8o arrlT»d at by tb© jla abetractl onls 
and 90 coneelTsd aa the M rt ie r t '^rlnclrie In a syBten of aJwtrae- 
tionSf is rejected bgr Saint Thonaa, for he brings againat It ttia 
a rg u — n te ho has elaborate** in derierKlence u-on the texta of the 
l»taphar»ica and the Fthira and rejects aa -nell) In rrinclr^le, 
tte Ml— ii l a l i i — which wtitaishes its aadstntts mat diteralais 

1t« nature, ■' Qot in the !> Verltjite article itaolf, there ar-- 
pears a different treatnient of the nosltion itself, for, nftnr 
•xplalninr h<WrtT6»f I» iHtleed the «xeisr>iar and effective prinei- 
)»le of all created croodncee. Saint Th'T'oe adde, *<>Tiantua ad hoc 
opinio Platorie eiwtineri potest." A oiMlir basic distinction 
«D the mmmnfm of the poeltio 1^ fo«Rx! in the Kthice ; 

Circa prinram considerandun est, quod Arietoteles non 
inteodit ia^obare o: inionom ^atonis quantuw ad hoc quod 
ponetaat urew bowua eeparatqa , a quo derervfcrerfT'oianla 
bona..., ItT-robat auten o.-^inionen Jiatonia quanton ad 
hoe , qwod rwnebat b<Bim separatoa esse '■^ua'udaa Ideaa cop - 
Mu nea ocmiuig Wioraa .Jt^ 

In the bunoa Theologlae, a^ain It is precisely' the first inter- 

protatlon of the position which is approved. However ^ both in 

the ^e Veritate and in the Sujwa Theologiaa , the approval deponda 

upon a shift, froo the via Plator.lca, t.o the arguoBntation of 

Saint Thoitas hiraself which places the position squarely within 

the TTattom of thf> cacseo and /Ives it thereby a nrociae mean- 
inr:. Tn <>ffect, there is an aabi^it^' in sucA expressions as 


^V ^ »»i» v^ rt b«ffi^ «« ,*t»o©* ««* vol 

J? , irew cs utftalltm bfu. ids br 

ftnMt9 1^ at ttiacft ^t y»?^teo cf siM* lo BMJnMK «i* od 

aofl V 



IltTOiqqs tKii ,r *ii 

to fif;»-''^.t'«':i.iyjift ed . - . -.j>:nofi»X*? a|r r^l? «r«»i^ .:?1tffl3 a nam/ 


IQ 20 

"OHBlA slnt bona bonltat* rtrlaa" and "bomM oHila bonl" 

which naraita of tbalr intarpTAtatl on In «1th«r of the dlrac- 
tlona Indicated above. Thla aabigni^ Saint Thoaaa baa thos 
rMKnrod, bnt in doinff ao be diaenitaffea tbo preT>08itlon froQ 
tbe Tia latonlca and attachaa it to the doctrine of the cauaea, 
in tens of which the relation of creatures to Ood wqr be aecQ- 
rataly stated, tila procedure hare la in accord with the roles 

ha had ureTioualy, without reference to Plato, laid doen for 

the understaadlae of pro-^oeitions of ti.ia tjoe. Bjr the mmm 

token, the asblRulty which surrounds the tens partid nation in 
this context is likewise renovad. 

In accordance with this twofold interTa*etatian of Pla- 
to's position, >*e thus find two different attitudes in the 

terts, orie acceptins Plato's rosltion and usinft It as a corv- 



flnplnff authority and for positive construction} the othf^r 

re.lectin? it, 

Thtis, Saint Thoras consistently and continuously nlacps 
the Ooed at the hlRheat point of the Platonic hieraretagr and this 
la explainln,? both Plato hlnself and the Pla tenia ts., 
it Is consistently inte«rat#d with the Theory of Ideas, based 
on the soae rational ground and having the sane relation to par- 
ticular froods as any Idea does to its inferiors. The cdaeidsaM 
of the pasltlo itself, taken asaterlally, with Saint Thoaas* oan 
doctrine is tharottdhXy eaplelted and tiae participation relatloi - 
ship either explicitly cr inpUdtly, Is d«t«ntined within the 

!»l«Mf eJtWK) mm9it* he* ^ "Htatta «*Alte»rf ftt^otf tat* - ' " 

•it al Mta/tlMs inmn^libawf tall mdS m «iwt.tJhK>4 «••« 

-CMS « w iJt ytla0 bos ooM^aoq «'o^«r taaf** vna «e<hr«t 

ifMU-to «!# , |aoliaM<«r«nD9 ffrJ^lvvf tali te* V-^toriiM »attn£l 

aw* iv ^*W 

bvMd ,s£9bl lo TKi«(T oC.i dihv tnScrzfi^rft \ •! #1 


psttcm of tkB «nuM«y ttaw belm: fmad iron aabl«aity and rron 
ttas poasihls toma of Platoaie interpretation. 

i»«ctioo 5 
Tta» " Qae " 
At the top of the Platonic hlararehor etanda tte "One.'* 
(ki thla noint all Saint Thoaaa* aoureea agreed anip eooBequantly, 
the vw am xtaam apoeara conalatantljr ttr — phcwt the texte in 
eomblnatlon with Oood or Boiac or both toKotbar* as a deaer^p- 
tlon of the hleheat Qod and flrat prlnciole. The taxtc attrib- 
ute ti» doctrine, without distinction, to both Plato and the 
Platonis ta • * "■"'■■- 

Whaa «• exaaiao the texta cloaely« however , «a fiad once 
two different attitudea. In aoaa the Une ia accepted 

approfed) in others it la criticised and rejected. Ihe one of 
Plato is described as a saparated and aubaistent aniveraal in 
which the separation is precisely contradi< ted by the eoaaoo ex- 
istence in iBsny and the predieability of many which constltnte 

ita universality. It la a aaparate Intelligible principls in 

the sonse that uniTersals are intollipible. It is one of the 

highest setters and, on Plato's sbowinR, must be ss parrt a l y sab> 

Istlnt; If any renera at all are to be subaistent. 's a highest 

gsnus, it stands first aa the "prinsm abstractun" ia tbm reified 

pattern of ffeoara and species,' its position of priority beinp 

deterwiaed by its ereater caaoapttaal slaplicity. ohUe separate, 


mrA tXBXf . meA Imvit vdttd «■» ^amxao 9t» ^ f, - 

Z a»i^8»3 

, >« ( ' . /v ♦ ) 

tX ^MMip— <Ba «taw bftsftnc Mo'Moa *a<«nlT itat*iS X£» 4nton alttt oD 

•tfi iMB oiAiH d>o<f oi .ootiMMBith iucii#hr ««iJht»taBb di:" Ate 

anno Jwil Mr ^varfttwd ^xtotto •doeait «1# aniflERx* mr fiMill 
tsm b»iT>o»i» Bi «d9 (Mil oana nX .M) owl vsoo 

n? "ImmmbeM int^^imita boa WlyfBM « as b»<C H a» b •! oiajn 

•Is^ uaifh< xoMft 1b> ^i£t<iHariNr3«( od# Ism ^(m ml ttati^Jtmt 


9Md»JM • ■* ,tttft"*- -^ o^ M» XI* «• ft .^ '.^^ «<^ lib i^MMl 
bmiUvn «d» ni "cu^am^egK mhtI^" aril m J^vtll nix: 


.»ta«aq«9 •IMK •-toMaiXcpla Xsv^qiMi.. .J^AMqi ttt ^if ^^ -"^-^ 


it mamt. Ilka msy sep«jwi«d mpmt im ; ]r«t hm %bm miOmttaM of all 

tldiiga whleh arm mam and Is ttaua InTolvad In Mm protilanatlcal 

10 ^ 

ralatlon of Idaaa to particulars • In short, tha Onm, mm erlt> 

ielaed by Saint Thamaa, Is ralatsd to all tiiose argoaents of ths 

lies wh:!eh Saint Thonai has radosad to aad unlflad in tha 

prinelplas of the rla Plato niea . If, than, infarenea wrm 

aaeassar?, i^ could coneloda ttiat Saint Thataaa aaaa ths PlatOR- 
Ists as positing tfas <-<ob throuxh tha basic argoaantation i^ieh 
ha so of tan outlinaa and ataapa with a "non constat." 

lafsraaea, ha aw ro r, is not naeaaaary, since tha Ona is 

axprassly ralated to ths via tfistractionis in tha aajcr texts. 

Thaaa crltiqvaa, therafore, so explicitly and consist. 

aoftly BAlntal ned and the exact parall<?l of the caac to that «f 

the Good, force ua to cenoluda that it is not this 'Qna" that 

appears in the texts «hleh poeitdTely aad a^jfarorinc^ly Inoor- 

ipavate Plato's "One." T;d.8 later traatasnt is» ttaarafore, ptrely 

positional and usee the aaatorltas ' •pcsitio mode of handling. 

aaotlaa 6 
Pt m ease . Per sa vita . For se intolligere 
Saint Thoaaa had raad in the _^ Tjivinls MoaJnibaa a doc- 
trine wtrleh sat up, as separate deities and creative eauaas, a 

par sa vita , a per wm esse , a per se saplentla, a per ae pax , 
etc« In an early eacoaater with thla dactrlne^ he at leaat 
%aaiativelx Identified ita authora, otberwise omiaasd by Ilooysius, 


nii>ltsmBl4ovi 9At fll bmiaml nttJ aft tta •cw «« eiojQdv 

•rtJ \e •*< <»W4<^ life ©* "^ '^ «1 ,a»aaifT ial»i2 "^ bealel 

«li ffi bfllllRtf Jbfls <Kr befwrbcrt a«i aMRktfT iatttS dobi« a: 
.4»#JlC*I *'^" •* ^-* a**rt^ - ' - ' ^» •» ,rtf~ 

.^f^cjw^ aom" « ^1» aqnala baa aooJtX.^«Gr ocile oa ad 

af aoD ai» aoola ,r»? ^ ♦»» •* t'^ ~ ""^ 

.«*je«i wtaa ad J ol «W o* ba^aXa^ tIaMW(io» 

.^alwioo boa \liX9ll<f^& oe ,nol«-ia<i/ ,aMrplil^a aaarfT 

^ Mif» o» aa«« «•# la laXXavKf ^^ "^ '— - • * - ^*- 

*i*ii& ^mO" aMi #a« al it itti^ aooxmaa 9* m vnmi ,floou «ii# 
~<a>tMi) c^riitwviqia txia v^Iar^iaoq daMa afxa^ adi at <l 
viswc; ,a9latadi)^ ,a^ immtmmt •amtMt uMt ".aMD* a*aJai5l a^annq 
«t ^ ateM j« ail^ «MMr im lacwtilaoq 

-9aC> a sc ainirlKi a>1 aii» nt baant barf aaaatfT MtaK 

a ,aa8oaa trrtlaanta boa a9ii#2»b «^ia<;aa aa «i|V ^aa Aotn*: ^» .. 

^MaX te «i ti^^f^^^ B^*** fT^thv <Kr na al "^.ada 
^aat9ffmJ*i V* bmtw aa^amaifto t«.s.>»ja all oaitl^sabi x>^ .. -' 


•• th* '*frent51f>8." sihmn, Iw Ttr, ha camm to eamamnt ttm rale> 

vant tii-ct In thi* I)o DlvlHlg IkMdnibue , h» attributed tb« thaorj 
to tkim Platonists and donMlopad a rathar long prvaeniatlon of 
the Platonic backn*ound«^ Tha attribntion of tha doctrine to 
the riatoniats occurs only In the followlniT wortcai y.T., I| 
Is 2* 11?* ^^•^ IE i;* j^ r.«<»la | i)a So b. Sep ., and Sapor Eg. 
S. PtMll j^ roless . It would m«m, therafora, that the road- 
Imr of i^i*oeliia (^aTe hla a dear viev of the theory and lt« orl- 
jlln, slnee all theae worka otherwiae ahcar the influence, to a 
creator or lesser de^pree, of ttia EjeaoBtatJo TheolorH ca and 
since in thew the detail of the doctrine afrroee rather with Pro- 
tilna than with Monysiaa. Tn none of theae toxte, however, is 
the doctrine exrHcltly and c«rectly /Htrlhuted to Plato hi»- 
aelf. Yet the doctrine ia conaistently redtieed to and Inte- 
grated with the via Platonica (wMeh is, of course, attributad 
both to Plato and to tha Platonlsta). The baektTound ia tima 
presented in In He IHy. Was., 11, it l<>31Ji 

Ad eulua evldentiaH adaBdUM eat quod Platonlel, pe- 
nentes ideas i*erua separataa, oKtia quae sic in abstracto 
dloantur, poaaiii m/k in abstracto avbeiatere eauaa* secta- 
dum ordinen quendam; ita scilicet quod pritTun rerun prin- 
eipiVB dlcebant oaae per so boDitatea et per ae onitatea 
et hoc prtmue prlncipiun, quod <!!8t essenti alitor bonua et 
«MB, dle^aat esse mmmim Detrr'. Sub bono antes ponebant 
esse, ut supra rllctnai eat, et sub esse TXtnebant vltan et 
aic da alii a. 7 

Tha intef^ntion ia carried out In detail. Tha p9ir am 

vita, for exaaipl*> i> parallol to the per ae hoao , par am eguue , 

etc. It ia a ainitle eeparated aiibetanee w^th the aaaa cauaal 


A o# «*o(i«0Xtnl cri^ Nona saivs^tfio «(«« Motll JUa •aai« ««ila 

r1 ,i«V(Mioii ««t}to# aawti lo mkmi si \9mkm%fmVi dPtm imU mils 

bciaJMJJa ,««wo9 lo .,«t rf»i*r> ^ «« dttm be*«-ia 



rvlatlonahipe to alnitulars m aqy Idea. ihu», though tttia tri a- 
Ifl Ti«rmr vxplJclUjr attaeiMd to -^lato's mum, it la uauerstood 
and oxpIalMd praelaaly through tha analysis of tha Theoiry of 
U«aa aa darsloned In tha eooBantary on tha MatnlB^ica ana tha 
yJM Platonlca « Thla intagration, hcawTar^ raiaaa a particular 
problar; vlth reg«rd to tbA relationahip ba t— a n tha Good and tha 
p ar »9 •mmm m In aany ta^ta tha auprana ood >• tiia olghast of tre 

Idnaa -» is aald to Vm* according to PjLato and tha Platoniata, 

Hmm t Baaun and &na . No* oalnt Thamva was aaax^ that in aoaa 

aaaae Dlonysioa aceo:ilad a cartaln priority to good ovar being. 

Thia priority ha jaterpratad aa ranting on a certain wider cauBaj- 

itj attribntabla to KOOd.*^ In the triad of Produa, howavar, 

ha found a doctrine in which tha <'00d «aa ontoleglcally diatinet 

fires and ouperlor to Being. tteracfrar, ha aaa too that thia 

confortsad to tha Flatonle argaaaoft which required for every ab. 

atract fonaallty a eorraspooding distinct aubaiatent principle. 

Now, the later taxta ahow three different accoani^i in 
•ana the Platonic first principle ia rapcvtad aa tha (.4ie, tha 
Good and Belnf { in othara It ia said to be Ckia aod Oood with no 
■antion of Balngi in the third set, the explicit subordination 
of Being to the ^loed is deaeribed. 

tha pattern oi uhe tactic in the De Subatantlia Separa - 
tla is particularly Inatjructive. Tha flrat aeetlons of the work 
(Chapters l-l5) are a revlaw of tha opinlona of tha pldlaao- 
pbara. V;ithln thia review i2.e aocxxinoa of Plato aoo iXrlatotla 


ed^ (xMt r-*^ — '- ^M JMti' no x!Ma*iKi*n» vtt at bmt»imr9b «s »s«bf 

»iii fans hooT ««ll lOMwlQd ijiXint arfl o^ icrm^irt Aita smlttv^ 

MLi \o *99l^tli •lU — titO II— nin Mil B#3e«t tHMi oT •2SS5 ^ IS 

ihit iaAt ^rt WMt «n ^t»vo«3oll »|mU«iB ot loJhW'-itfe boa kdiO 

fil jBJna^snf. tnvxolXtb mwU woti% fx9i 'mtmt. mt^ %miU 
n<it ^nm^i mdi 8ft b*tfnioq«« »t •X'rinrHiyi t«vl^ ft|rtn4itf*f aiH «««>e 

oe ji. '!» L,u%.'-^ ias mO ad o4 MB*- " — ^'** »c(> 

oUi}#BtsA baa oJTa^ lt> aMJtn^aob od^ araiws aiii« ajt<l#£S ^.airadq 


iM«Mlf In a fashion, as cerrvetlve nanm for Urn -aw— •- 

But tha fimt chaptera praaant a ratlo^poaitlo analjrala of 
Plato and Arlatotln. Th» familiar a rg u aa n t la taara praaanted 
for Plate and ixa fundaaantal prlnslple ra.lacted. irithln thla 
foraallj critical context tha firat prlnclpla la aald to ba *ac- 
eundiiB aa uana at aeeandua mm ^aamnf vlth no nant on of baing or 
of the triad. A eartaiii nnutrallty la tJitia nalnt«inod on ihlo 
point. In Chapiar Thraa tha dlaouaalon entera a nav phaao la 
trtilch the poaltl onaa ara conald«re(i. Tha cooaldaratjon la actu- 
ally a ra-warklafr of the poeltlonaa ordered to thair aubaaquent 
MMPnatl^a ua«. In which Saint Thonaa pl^ys Arlatotla and Plato 
aitalnat aubaaqoant phlloaopbara. Tha auctorl taa - ^oal tl o tech- 
nique, therefore, eonoa Into nl&y and the poaltlonae , when their 
atatoiRent allova, are ffl'ven an adantl-ve Interpretation. For ex- 

aapla, bgr an argunentatlva intarfvetation the aet-potemQr eaapo- 

sltloQ la applied to Plato*a aeparatad aubstaaoaa, bnt. In tha 

eaao of aeparatad apeelea of aenalbla boln^, tha poaitio Itaalf 

Is atUl rejected.^ Through thla aection the theory of tha 

first nrrnelnle la a till teiyen under the exelualva rubrics of 

unity wd croodn^as, thooirh it la now interpreted within a 

context of Thonlatlc eatvallty. 

'fain, whan tha probian of creation Is diaeuased, a aolu- 

tlon is dramn fron the posltioaa of Plato and ilrlstetle, bat here. 

by a ai^>le and rapid arg u Be wi , tha prlaw la noa ahoan to bo T^ 

auB Bimm and araln by an arguaantatlon that thla Ypau» I^aaa 


-Ml** «rf oi flu en 8t •IcfltNfl-scr fmfl »ti* ^aJtmo I»»i. 

tttffi (ft fcAifhi^xKr wftr «r tf»^ ' 5 .teH# »<» te 

"UiWi •! «n!iB«t<i>t> tract) itt ^brntabtmo^ •- _^ x*^ od* itpJ^ 

' -i <,# t -- - '-« n^ )* t<tM<««»«Yt a tiXB 

•^xIH bat •XJiD^vfttA MXftJb? Mrstft Snst^ istMm Kf «MMr evr^n«r»n 
"^^^^ o J^ ^/^o<H"M»i JttCKHiri t 0(iT .inwfcfCMMliifi Swaofmmdvm ttnttifut 

>Q»]ieio^^<ta a^ no yift «u -^ ^•ifp» 

o^ Kt ,#ail ^"^t^ '-" " •---« o# katJUna «f 

.^> ft .* x^ 


a itM^lv bfi^^nnnraMt waa o> tl iT^uotf^ «er. ha* \:<flnB 

-0jto« * »hr- - ^«i et «att- — ^ (Midcrm --^* -—'# «flJb«ft 
(W^rad fw4 ,al4«raHA bw (KtaX4 Icr mq arf^ nant oaarxlk ai nnit 

-3I arf ot OM/fe wwt cf ao arhao •Itr |.»n«ia!tjj»n« bit^n^t btt* •L<3^1% m Xf^ 
♦aa& iratrT ^M* *art* naWf • » Ma -^f «l«»i Nta aea» wra 


1« tha ualirersttXa mad first cause of all bslni;. Bnt at this 

podLat ths De ^obs^ldit* o«psratis rsiurnB to a critical pasaass 

in ardor to doal with ths prohlsa ol a -ultj olieitx of first 

easBM. It is illustrativs of daint TtMsas' tsehniqiM that hr 

■aiatains tl;« Platoole position within the eortezt of causality 
and of tha adsptivs intsrpretation alrearqr Sivsn^ ** coaesotratin;? 
sololy on tho sfultlplieity of the cauaws inrolwsd in the Platsnlc 
position. Btut once a^ain this nultiplicity itsslf is intsf^ated 
into the Platonic arKuaent t^ a brief but cloar reference to the 
earlier presentatblon. " In the last aectioii of this work, where 
the ?aith beeoaes the sole norm o:^ deterai nation, Kaint Tbonas 
osss a theoloiTical arfuac-nt afainst the aultiplielty of causes} 

hsre, h o wever, he tuma against it an ar^^uneBi wiiieh depends upcn 

a text of Aristotle' and by this weiy fact further ties tl.e tl». 

orj tn the Platonic arguaentatlon. In the coaasntory on ths 

ist— tnatos Saint Thcnas had dcTelooed the arguaent that distinct 

•apsrated speeies of snixal and of biped woold destroy tho trnity 

9^ ma. It is this arf^wMBt which, with the aaas sxaa-^ls, he 

now uses against tho Platonic posit! o « lie explains that the 
causal relationships set Hr* in this theory require distinct re- 
lations between a pi van singular and each separate nrinolple 
aatl that this Is parallel to the relatloaship of hono to aalwal 
and to bipes . In this rase the stAwtaailal unity of the indi- 
l^tda^ aobstance would be deatrogrsci; eonsequentlj, the distinotjon 
in separated causes narnot be nalntAined with resrwet, at least, 

»hR>^sX*! MtY at b--'-—'' ™ — s •H* 1«»T" '-'"»' 35 wit «e xIsJQm 

-4nll «f^ oelt i<m:^*w1 iosi ^n^ ^r^ V^ >Iiol8ln<i \o tmi • 

«(# a» x»*a »xm» mK nl .Aolisincaufnrcs 9tfK>^0JS «(i# o4 ts» 
4iMJt>«tb ial^ iotrnvgn wi# k«q«X«*vfe Mil m«^.-... ^aJbBd jfj»- 

•tit *mif mttkixrm aK . ojtfiicq otoo^Af^ «!# ^•ft/ftnt. «..«^ -^. 
t#«Mi£ «• «^o<«iB*« ifiiv b««i*lai»a ad imemaa ammaa b^Stetm/Mt mi 



^|||^||rii^(|||^t|^ j»r factions. To ttalB ontological noltlplicity 

(which i8 the direct coTis«queaee of tho via £^9|EHSyfi£^ Saint 
ThowM opp«s«« the facuDd sinplicity of God in othoa tba psrfac- 

tloDB of lifOj intelliftaoce and being are all united in virtue 

of the pure act of existence which Be is. 

In the last seetion of the De Substantiie Ssparatis a 

ne« sort of consideration la carried on, for bare ^aint Thoaas 

turns fk'oa the philosophers and lajs down the facts of Faith, 

using here one of the Sancti for puide, Dlonysius. %ithin 

this section, therefore, «e find a positive prasentation of 

theological positions} the subtle interworicing of philosophical 

doctrines is left behind and positional errors are slnpl^ 

brought to the test of Faith azxi rejected. liere then appears a 

Inrief but forthright description of the theory of nultlple sepa-> 

rated causes and argunents against it drawn froes Scripture and 


Di(»qniius» Here tho posltlo is <ie8crlbed as distinguishing 

^^ ^P»^ bonltas of God fron aaothsr subordinate god, ipauw 
esse . e are cosolately outside the delicate nuances of ths 
previous section. 

Siisilar variations appear in the coanentary or the De 
Divlnis Soatnibus . The first text attributes the theory of the 
triad to "soM* Platonlsts and identifies Bslng and Oooctosss in 
the first principle. In several texts the distinction between 
Ooodnoss and Being is asserted and indeed strsesed. There Is 
also again an adaptive sort of text in which ^aint Thoeias argues 

iatBt tb wit Kt 

a e Mlt 1v ool^so* i««£ ati^ ctl 

'^^,* (U-.^US 

!» iwt^ 7 vrt^lawf • tell mi ««^t»Y«di |ii»Jt«9tHi •bii 

TT^ift •« *!•*•• . mq tifm bat-i^i il*X c£ nml-aaob 

a » iMtf# »nfi ^Ue^M^M tm AHm\ lo SmU fit •# v .«.,.~ 

.|»1-^ -.; 

ol «MabaoO bi» ^nttB mmtlUtmbt boa aleiae^aX^ 'tao^" o* ba^txt 
ttMmi^ aatfoattuib Mil 9Ax9S JUnmnu at '.•Xcrfsohmr trill «(ft 


that, e^rwi on th« Platonic aMuaptf on of tfaa ifiad, tte first 
principle must bo Ipaua E»— , In gomral, the sol act* on of 
the Bodo of presontatlon sooas to dspsnd or the IJtters of the 
text belnit consented; kovsver. In no case Is the triad ex- 

pressly attributed to Plato md In omnry case Dloajslus Is ex- 

asMrated and ths doctrine Itself is, as ws have ssen, inte- 

orated with the reneral Thsorj of Ideas and the via aba'oractl - 

onl3 . Ths saae variations are nreseBted in tto coaasntary on 


the Liber F{e ^ausls. ' iiere, too, ths aathor is said not to 

hol'1 the riistinctlort between the flivt rrinclT^lo and Be'n;;* 
In addit^ ;n, the authority of Diooyslas (as underctood, of 

fHOnse, in Saint Thcaas* oan easBsntary) Is iirtrod«eeil agaiAst 

ths Platonic view* Kith regard to the triad, ipstaa esse, 

in— vivre , ipsig Intelligere , «c can concludet 

1. Saint Tho<nas does not attribute tte ontoloclcal distinc- 
tion between ii^guai bonun ami j -<«un esse to rlitr, hias^lf . 

2, Tive doctrn-^e is seen to be a lotd-cal c^ orit or ■/- 
least are logical dsvstlocosnt of ths vz- x-xaniea, and, 
though found in Proclua, is read in the lif-lrt of the 
varm oosltisn of the Platonic Ideas* 

^, It contains two points of doctrine, the nultlplidLtdr of 
iBoediate yet ulti ate causes and the separate subsist- 
ence of the Good and of Bslnc. Both of ttasM positions 
Uaint Thonas rejects both in principle and in the"!- 

* ,^•^5l"«fi■ lo W 

ck> Rl)iVt> (^M 

%o r- 

9 OH »t ,inve«mff 

•jMbI ,i0M cMif ^ ^ :•! ^iMt^t dttK:»»afc wfif tn* ^^iMt^siMo 

^.lirr'ai fine m^taftHi ^B-tJtl flrfi «••«***(«!*• Mof! 

"•-i , it 

_-•-<" f«T'-> *».»> %»1-\ r>. t «r\ C.^ ' rii-'-^f r'^ ♦.' 

' • r >r,«-r . "ff r.->.'i 

4. •. . f" 

■f ,. 

.... v.»T- 

XN'.j iC 



. « "1- ,^ 


•;.', -^ .." i' -f'^- I. i ,7 


Seetlon T 

Saint Thr- -nlrrtertlT- Mcrrlbtw to tbo "^atoriata a 

doctrine of fiawworfta which is m»atly Bvammr^teA Ir the deflrrf . 
tlon of Apulalust aniwalia corporg aoraa , mryt* ratl^naMlla, 
aniwo passlva , to-^org aetorna* Thay are statlMMd in tha air 
below the eel«9tl.:il bodies. Hamit are rrood; oth'TS are erllj 

yat all wust be worahlptped with a rellgloua cult for they act 

c 6 

as aedlators between poda and nen and ara agenta of Prorl 'lone*. 

The doctrine appeara In sany teatts throughout the worka and la 


gewnrally attributed to the Platonlste, frft'^iifirtlr to ^tmlelua 

by nane, ?lrito M-^olf often enough — and oven as late aa the 

Pe Subetantlla S aparatis — is dtad a» Its patron. All these 

attributions are *n close accord with Saint Augnatine's rTtCTisi-va 

dlscuaslor In the _2£ ^vitate T)el . The rsoot alimif leant fact 


is, howwv<?r, thflt the daerionea aro foatiTTcd In the earl! oat aa 
wall aa in thp latest of the Thorlstlc •presentations of the ?la- 
tonic hlorarehy of belror. The doctrine, henreTHr, Is nrrer re- 
duced to nrlor nr indoles or related directly to the via >T.ato - 
nlca . It is "terely reported and rapeated. It Is, >t<wev»r, defi- 
nitely Saint fllAiU* view that this doctrine is an authentic 
Platonic -position, restlnp, at least n -^enpral, (m the aatlwMPlty 
of Plato hiaealf.^' 

•r vv 


•i Ian wBHam «u ir^ aJxatf ^;mM ml troi-v^qii tattSyob odT 

»8G(W •ap>»fta iKf^ SB imJt9 ni -^ u^ en 

aft #aat£ift9 mU nl !>f>it.tft«1 anca ■ odl ^sn^ «i«Ta«cKf «■! 

-•jw f^ 1 ftft Haw 

• ■.'i j.^y -Ti '-ix , *;-'.• v^ii » -»^- i''f'TPc ^ « •ii.v*. 3A> -^z 


9wffft04lfft fM J L ujii'ij-'sj 1 o i-tui .-. -r • « «iri-\,wii> -T»iA<' \i.9SIM 

ritvuMru& 9At no ^l3'i9t^9•» n^ f9m^ is ^^tSwa «floii^a»n oinoiajn 


SMtlon 8 
Th» Final 3ynth— i» 

TlM mmt axtMidsd and probably th* lat««t of Saint 

preaantatlcRTS of tha Platonic hlararehy Is to be 
in tha Po Snbatanti la Soparatig . TMa alaborate ayntheala of 
data drawn froia wuqr aotirecs reata Wim total poaltian a<|uaraly 
a« tlKJ orinclnlwa of the Tla Platonica and, 1n f^ict, lays out 
tha dotal la of the hli^heat level of belnir 'n aturiled depaadenee 
on th*-^. After the co?»r>lete prcaentatlon, the radix of the In- 
tegrated t)oelt1on 1.8 said to be "ea cuae Intellpctys senaratli* 
Intellljirlt, 3er»aratt'^ oase ea in rerws natura." No reduction 
eould be nore fonnl. 

The laatha-aatlea appear in a pararranh that la rrellnl- 
nary to the ays term tic pattern of aubBtancp*. The a^Mlatenoe 
of the trlamrlea, Unas and ao forth of Kathaaatleal daaowatra- 
tion la, aa •wa havR aeen, conaletantly stated as resultlnp fro™ 
the tranapoel ti on of abatractlona to reality and la regularly 
attributed to Plate, bat in no text are these entitles clearly 
assigned a definite laurel in the hierarchy. 

The unpcr leral la oeeupled by God Who la the One and 
tka Good of Platonlaa, standing first in virtue of conceptual 
priority. As «aa oointed ost, no •nentlon cf Reliw tsr of per se 
Timers and ner se 1 ntell-< g;ere Is here wmf^«» Tramediately beneath 
Ito One and the Hood stand the other separated nrv^eles and be- 
neath than the order of aeparated Intellects. 


6 o^jUm^ 

?^- rwdAXfl . Cl 

Suo «xs£ «^Mi At. (tea siUt ..« &u^^^3£u:'Sj| «4jr oo 

-t£ i» X.i2>L- - */o dtnn'i on has «<in?r ,'7?jr-ffr.!«it off./ 'ia 

arcni aaxJiy«9n M ot-vjva xW**'*^'^^^ - ^'^ ''^ •^^ rsQXJ 

Xl'ui»li»^ lam o^ vt^Uoartif^'- tJ wU 

ban -i si Ota boO i9f f.>9lqiraoo T 

M vng to 10 giftoS ^r^ pottam on «^w> btlvloi w aA .V^^witvi 

^ed bcis aaioecfs b^a'^qaa 'cm<;^o arf^ hnsla booO •fU' hna aaO wdi 
,8;h-' *■'- — ' '-'"— «q»« lo lafrw mU m^Hi Mm/an 


Up ^lUfHtrtiption of thn s«Darat«d InteHlgencM r«li«8 
fctlffllj upon r''roelus, but tbey or* fitUKi into Uw baale Pla- 
toale fraiwvork tiirouf^h kno»l«dM«« For, like the huaMi intel> 
l«ct, they are actu j ntolIlgwnt«e aad hav* kooMrlMlg* la virtue 
of tliolr parti clpaticx] in the 8«pu'«t«d species. Like all other 
tkLngBf they have goodnnss and unity by participation In the 
first One and Good. 

Below ttese Intellects Is a double order of soula, the 
proper aark of a soul being, as baint Thonas has always said of 
Plato's Tiew, that it wnfa Itself. The souls aove the heamn- 

ly botiies. This, too, Saint Thonas consistently attributed to 

Fl«to; naaely, that the heavenly bodies were animated. Aniaa- 

tlon here, though, »ust be understood in accordance with the 

general theory of the soul, as consisting in the relationship of 

a aovor to the noved. Beneath these souls is the level of the 

dae-^ones which are described in accordance with the ^neral view 

derived fron Saint Augtistine. 

Now all these entities which lie between va and God, that 
is, the separated species, tine separated intellif^encaa, the soul* 
of ti<e heavenly bodies and the daeraones , would have to be designatad 
"angels" frosi a Chris ti-m viewpoint. 

Thus, in final Bynthesis, the data derived froa so aany 
sources is sifted, selected and organized, Tt is indaed a far 
davalopaant fron the pattern of the De Potent la { the view of 
Kacroblus has disappeared, the influence of the text of Wsaoelns 

stfi^Jhr At •si)eKl«oani ctmI to* e «^o«X 

• bgoO iMtt anO ictil 

o^ te.^iftil%t^c .lanoo Mr9«i' «ii«£ ,o«l ^tlifT ••^jbtod %^ 


«t^ ^ iM«,£ cd# ai aitfo^ ^ .Iwroa vd^ o# '»«e« • 


Is aearcely to ba r«eognlsed| all the detail fron Proclua, 
*.Ui-'uatine and othara la nut tocrther under tha ai^ of tha 
via Platonica , wl.ich, to a large aoctent, appeara to tnilda 
the aelection and to prorida the ythlloaophical rationale, 
with an ejBf of course, to the total strateey of the De Sub - 
stantijs Separatis . 


-t^ i* te •'(^iiMsrii* iBini art/ o# ,«r' ,«rc» a« rfiiw 

' ■ , •• • 

CliAPTKl-. XI 

The goneral conclusions which e«»rg* fron this study 
are of tvo kinds. Sons are the direct result and the aain 
iaport of the ordered presentation of the e-vldence. Such will 
be the asnsral conclusion concerning the doctrinal anal/sis of 
tlie Platonic theories studied. In this case we need onl>- sua- 
aarize the concliM5ic»\8 already rpaehed. Others, howeTer, de- 
pend upoa points which havtt besn treated in difforent sections 
and as subordinate to ol^er prinary topics and yet which con- 
verge to indicate a separate conclusion. Such will be maaaj of 
the points wiiich have to do with !!»thodology and with oaint 
Thonas* polMdcal strategy. These conclusions sugr be regarded 
as by-products of the main line of the study, yet, despite 
that, are nonetheless of considerable inportancc. 

The conclusions will be divided into three groups t 
(1) those relating to Saint Thonas* asthodolory; (2) those re- 
latinf^ to the doctrinal analysis and critique; (3) those re- 
lating; to ^aint Thosaa' poleadeal strategy* 


1 ■) .'. ^ ■ ■<. ! 

1 /-.xj '^t 

AtMi orfi bcu ilaeai ir>oxth mU am anoii .atnibl omS lo tru 
Ilhi ilatMS ,»rsti9btwm wU %t> BOiJ»t<ia««^ baiaino acU la l-so<|Ki 

ta aiexlana Lsat^j; ^■. ^..J saJti..^ itolaolaaoa lataoag ad^ 9d 

-cum ^^.Dto bawn at' aaas atOi «I .balhu^ aalioarf^ dineJAl? ar:^ 

-ab (TariMiO'i («T9<iJC> .iftadaafi «h««iXa sAotai/Xsnoa edi micHmr 

snai^oaa innalllb al ba.#aaxt u^,~ ^.aA dal.'h* aJsloq .^h" ""^t 

>fioo daldw iat tarn aaibq9># xtKiliq HAdlo a^ •^aattrsodva aa tns 

lo xn** 9(i LLtm if9tt£ •r)o±avXMX>3 •iaoaqaa a aJa^tbnt o>^ •giMV 

iai:aci iUhr tma xsoXotediani iUlw ob oil 9fad datfiw ahUttq atU 

b9tru^4i 96 y/m anaJteailanos a^edT .\:3r^i#s XAslxaJDaq 'iViKorfT 

a>ti!Qaab ,^ax %\^* ^'^ ^<> anil Rlaa adl la aimibovf-itrf aa 

•aaoal'nqBjb oldaaablancs ^ .... ».. 4^adi 

taciacns airxdi tsiai babi^fh od II1» ano^«uX^floa ad? 
-an aaoidl (S) {xaoi^^>o'i<^*a 'aanoriT ^niafi ol &ni#aXai aaa<U (I) 

-a. -,^- (€) lairpXitTO b: ,. _,. .^X»i» 1^ vb tdi oi i^i/aX 

•XS^A'K'* XA3j2t*Xo4i( 'as»d? inbiS ai sa^isX 



Section 1 
Saint Thoiwa' Itethodolomr 
V« are now in a poaltion to •laborats sowhat the type 
diirlslwi of t«ztfl with v!:lch ttvis atxidy began. «ie ma^ diBtin- 
guish thM« general erouplnest 

1. Texts wrdcn are unique. Isolated and of little iatrinele 
doctrinal iBportanee.l 

2. Texts which appear altsost soleljr within eum i wmt arlea and 
are not used by Saint Thowui in his peraonal worfts« 
Tbsae may be (a) slnple explanations or paraphrases of a 
Ki^wn text ie.£« the explaiiatien of the rlTsrs aad so 
forth in the comoentary on the 'ieteors j '' or (b) rather 
elaborate explanations of an analytic and constructed 
nature le.£. the explanation of the Identlfleatien of 
the Ideas and nur^ieirs which appears in muty passafrae but 
is of relatively little ^siportance outside the cornen- 
taries j . 3 

3. TeTTts which arc ctMiventlonal tag-quotations, attached to 
a standard prdblea or context, but are not, as snrh, 
worked into any of laint Thoaas* analytic texts or lar^^er 
syntheses. These tugf^ be Mrely vohiclea for pre s e nt ing 
an objection Lsuch as the "opti^ est optiwa adducere" j'^ 
or reporting; a theory Lsuch as thn texts which osrely re- 
peat Kcn^iius' outline of Plato's theory of Providence 
and which are used to raise the pr<^l«B of asdiated 

U, Texts wiucii pi-esent a i^tlo-poeitio analysis in which a 
po8it5on is detenalned hy a roduction to nrinciolee and 
in which a definite critique of these principles may^ 
or Bay ttot qjpear.^ 

5. Texts in which a p<»itio is understood as detendned, 
irtiolly or in part, by orincirlos, but in which a critinw? 
la direeted against the positio rather than airalnst the 
principles. 3 ' 

6. Texts in which poeitioncs , which oripinally depend upon 
ot4aer principles, are "deteralnsd'' by a reading in the 
li^ht of principles approved fay Saint Thonas. This in- 
volves the poeitio-auctoritaa treataent in its coreet 


olanJMtii aXliU "to htuk f»»4tiSomt ,«'rn?7fr- n-s '^•l^^v ?.♦ -eT ^ 
bffii ••^'T.' 'ir-- ».'?^.-" T?r',t^T '•.fsr-.n tfv-Is' TrjcrB i^-^^rtw etroT #S 

i»d^t^i W TO 1 




wti .tafli^e tiAiU tod San 

'.5:'i.i-. -.'! A-fel 

. > • /o 


7« Texts in which po»ition«« , vt^iicn ori^rinally d«pand upcn 
other principles, ar« tranaf erred tc a Thomletlr context 
and ar« r«ad, at laaat paiiiially, in tba light of oaiiit 
Thoaas' own principles, yet in which bosm ob Jsctl orjable 
pvlat is retainsd and nads the oantral point of a criti- 

8, Texts in whi 'jorz tlonffs which in their 

jfax9 ooraiderAv. oii uaas r«J«cts« ara ussd in 

positive philosophical or theolop;ical developnont. Here 
■oat hm iaelodsd a wide varlst; " e<ts dlspUylag del- 
icately nuanced variations of t ■ t, Sonetiaes a 
siB|)le argiaentation la used to transfom the direction 
of Uie position cr to bring it beyond its original 
fomi^ soaetiMes, apparently on the principle that even 
those in error have dimly scan the truth, a position, 
oilMMnfise unacceptable, is forced to contribute its aodl- 
CUP of truth, 1*^ 

It IS cKJviouB that these eate;:wies are not rigid or 

aathe«atically precise, Th^y do indeed overlap, and xKiny texts 

roulri ■^aslly be nlaced in several of ther. Yet the rea<ilnr* of 

tlie texts tnrouKnout this study presents the eviaanco on wrnch 

the classification is based, A«raln, the listing is not offered 

as conr^lete, but at least these classes do energe fJroB previous 

considerations . 

Section 2 
The Doctri nal '.rjii^sis aiw z-?.T,ique 
re have seen that Saint Thoaas achieved a rediiction to 
principles of the central thpscs of Plato's theory of knowledge, 
theory of Ideas aca tneory oi .->oparatod bubat-ancfts and (developed 
a point by point critique of those principles, of the rati ones 
and via Platonic a , Tn the theory nf Vw socl, we haive seen a 
basic positic. ,- erai theory and leading to 


, . , -. _-/3 

inl&'i lo vM at n» tac 

.... rt 

Kl Iwas (TEA ,«!* 'eo srtwr 

anoH . " T 

-lai |; , i« 

flOi'J^ 9 


-fbc 3 

Tc ♦tiff ffi* 3« ^-:rT!oi»'^ ^ir^ I 

lo 3|fllhs«n »({1 l«r ,Tmi^ lo lAisroa nt h*9&£q td \£laft« tiXuos 

o^ n • ftt * tm9mtdo» "" '^or oms wv-" —' 

M 0»»« OVM( «fr (XiKW Mil \9 V»M^ A^ OX .1 


poeltlom which in nany ctkamm humionls* with the ^rla Pl^tonlca . 
Th»s« central these* and theee nrinelnles Sidnt Thomae has at- 
tributed to Plat© wtd the llatorH cf , although h» r»cof»nljieB 
certain ^oeltlonal dlff«reneee wmontf the flatowlcl and avoids 
attributing c«rtain Txieltlone to Plato, l^wsMte theee recog- 
MmmI T>oelM«ftlA *lffwr«nc«a, the central doctrinal STnthetls 
ia iprosented aa Platonic in a general and T>«rva«riTe sens«>, 

!loreower, we hare eeen that the erttlquo of orlnciploe, 
while drai«dn«» froa ntany diffierent sonrces, does not exist in 
any dlsooivered eeoree as su(4i but is 1h« result of profTesslve 
construction and s^mtheais. The 8to«»y has indicated that the 
aiOBt lisDortant single source is the MstaiAyslcs of Aristotle and 
•specially Its first book. Tf this is tru«, then It may be said 
the Bost Inportant slnip.e r>lec« of analysis is the reduc- 
of the rati ones Platonleae rrw»ented — explicitly or Im- 
plicitly — In the Aristotelian tert to the fundamental mmthesis 
and crltlqiue which first a ppe a r s , in tlis cowwntary. In Tn ^eta. 
ll^j. For tins all the T^r-vlous lines of critlcisn were Irtp- 
grat«d with the Aristotelian critique (as interpreted by 
Ttwsp) and thus nrovlded Saint Thooas with a solidly organised 
iaiarpretation of Flatoniap* and s battery of interrelated connt'^r- 
agfgmmntm. And his selection from and readin<r of other sources 
(•vsn of Proclus) is doBdnated (in ratlo-posltlo texts, explicit- 
ly or iw"Hrltly swell) by this integratad view. We have seen, 
for exaamle, thet the wide use of the h<yo y«r se eranple (which 


nq •.{ 

,l>. )r> ft9ntiH4 atit 14^ «•«»« awiM •» ('rv«9'^'»'' 

bt > x^^J^o* * /iiHr BanDifT inlut bobtvoti ctxli lifw (8M»dT 

-lt9|IqX9 «Bix«^ fll) ba^jBteoto al (avloanc^ lo a»Ta) 


la AlaboratiKl In lyi tlo 10 of the eoMMntary on the firat book) 
«aa m toten and an Instruaant of thia Interrrotati on . 

Tf the tema, ex^flsviona aotl even urlncirlea of tte 
crltlniie ar« darlTad fro* mmj ctlvarse aourcaa, «• have a««i 
that, on the athar hand, thay v aoUdly Krcunded on ana con- 
ifatent with Saint Tho^aa' expoaltlon of his cwn yiems. In 
fact, certain parts of the critique appear at first alnoet as 
aiaple by-products of a rKwltlTa exposition of theory* 

Saint ThoBoa' lapidary fonnUAtioiis «f the points of 
crltlclsi! — so In keepiniK with Me t«rse style ~ brine *« 
rtiTp femw the precise places at which un'-onproTaising oppssl- 
%5.en appears. He is thus able to line up the iwo theories in 
a set of prlnelrlss and rtarting T>oint8 which <-tre o p ps s sd as 
"7M" «md "no") "■asssasrl— est...." -. "Non oseeesariwi 
est...." But behind these focal DSAato are the inplicatieas of 
wider thcHSory. ve have seon that the thecrles inYolved arei 
(1) the interpretation of boUi t)w isMdiate m^tUimmm sod tiM 
principles of taMMUi fcrnila^gsi (2> the phUosoptdral understatid. 
Inf of D9in<f{ M) the theory of the eansesi (L) the interpreta- 
tion of tho i i iM S d iaits ay id sMBB for the operat'onal and oniolsgl* 
eal unity of aan and the eesasqpsnt anpllcation of aatfeslailMUL; . 
princl-:>lea in a theory of nan and his operations. Ths theory of 
ilsdpe has a parti nilnrly Iwportant positlan^ alnce, larsely 

of it, there runs llliwufc ths ontire body of doetrlnal 
dif ferenee, a ftmiUsaiital opposition in the wods of piiiloeo 


tSTsUiBio ryiSmit Oft (9(10 tm^oi^ « aav 

)# fl«^»q a^i^ la atieUi4ust9l ^(vM»ib^X J»<> ^i . '^ 

»^ AlV* •9fm» tfid tfftm jvilQMil Ml «• «- «al«Mta» 

- i -THui holr'jr 1« aeoftiq MiAcMnRi wif avaol 4n*(te 

"btwiHiftotm X»aiil«|0«uii(tii •d^ cS) §*>_ ^ "ia tml^totxt^ 

X*3Jtsio4iM'i* ^ iMA^«9iX9Q» <te«irpeMMo« Mii Uk> turn t» ^Jmt ins 
lo ic»Mtf «ff .«aolAftiBqo alitf fam mm 1» VMdl^ s ct ■adyfaal-wr 


Dhitliifr, thB oppoeltlon vMch «• hrnvtn rxr>aa«<) in ttw wnmrml 
atatavant of tha via Platonlca . 

Tt !■ fron tha baekprounri of thia horty of doetr^na that 
Saint TboMta rxdnta his crltlelsa aw) It ts within thia baek- 
grooad that ha re<4tatarai naa or ra«lnternrata Platonle or 
Platonizln^ ooaitiona. 

vSactlon 1 
*■ Saint Thoiias' Poleglcal Strategy 

Wa haipe aaen too that tha atudy of Platonle doetHnac 
la not cexvluctod by Saint Thawaa aa a Twra lnva«tl<»atlon into 
iba history of philoaophj or eaan ai a T«Jraly phllosopMeal 
antarnriaa. On thp contrary. It is Paflnil^ly ralatnd to the 
ganaral pattom of hia polawica and to the 9tr.^ta«7 Inposad by 
the aituation in which he found hiinaalf* Tha two moat ivportant 
■Sanct l vliaaa auctorltataa were universally reewmlaed and with 
which he had tn deal, ware Saint <U{niet1ne am! T>i0||yslUB. In 
both 99»*»0 baint Tbonaa axpreaaly raeofpiti.saB, In tarca of Mm 
own analyaia of Platoniaw, the Platwile bftrk(»ro«inri. ¥fhen crltl- 
oal 1 S an aa are at ooint, he eonalatantly uaaa tha Platonle bnrk- 
0>ound as a raaaon for « olaar detamloation wItMn the fr au ea M lc 
of hia oan theorlaa. The antira eoHBantary on the Divine 

is a aori of eanaral datandnatlon of auctorltataa , in which, 
taxt by text, Pionyaiua be eo w as an auctar of Thomiatic poalM 
and in which ha is, on critical lasuaa, f^ed frca tha force of 


Unmmi 9itt Hi b^miac» tend m d9it! "^ ^mt9tiki 

.iM<f «fr1» ittrtilw sf #? M« m»j>»K9 aM aJnlo^ Asao^ jtetee 

'- ' '•■ >-: ■ 

i: ;^Bi»ff»^ J 2_ 'e^y lT ;?atet; 

»«al aottBjiU99nii 9tutt m a* ssaMiY i'Uhafi fs b«#9ulia«9 ton •! 

Xtf h«r>qpwt' XS***'*'* M^ ol bstM MbtaXoa aiil ^ orw^ieq iBimi*^ 

iWlw !ku fcsr' -x xjUsirTvrfnD ariiiv ■>i»-»t'»#iKJ o imodw '■ ' 

«I •Mftst"''^' ^of^ matimtwtk iakBd •tsm tlMKb ^ bMi «d liaiTiw 
«l«f t» Mr»i a> ,«Milnj|09fti >ci^ftao*iq3(» mmmadt ^ImH «iMMfto <l#o<( 

-ifomj 9tsK)^Srii lii %mu xitt»iil«ao9 9A ^Satam iu arts t m m mk Sju» 

mmeM yjyfg bM no fu^oMMc* niJii* aril •«»l<ipa(U «a» aid !• 
,doliI« oi «£^ Iks oo "^^eb Lbiu>>4W1| to ^io« « aJt 

In MTTcn «tl caorsl tMrtl «s«nMt ImaJUbto an ««i fli ilalllv «i !■• 


Platonic prlnelpl«s. The atrat*^!^ of Snlnt Ttaonaa thua alllfma 
tlia auctorltatea of ^aint Aunrustiiie and Dionyslua oa hia aid* 
of tha arguaent. iloreavar, by raduelnK tha aitamativa intar- 
pr«t«tiaas to Platonic prlnelplaa, ha la In tha adrantaraooa 
poaitlon of belni7 able to attack tha opDoaition tkroofrh a cri- 
tiqoa of a non-Chrlatian phllosoDhAr and to avoid a diraet cia- 
eua8l<m of, may, Saint Au^iistine. 

Qba of the most influential of non-Chrlatian auetor— 
the author of the Liber To Cauaia. Saint Thoaaa 

tha critical study of this work aroed with three iBocrtant In- 
struaenta: (1) hia ratip«poeitio aaalyais of Platonl«B) 
(2) hla preTloQS re -determination of Dionyaiuai (3) Moerbeke'a 
translati.on of the feleaantat^ o Tbeplogica . Althovrh he doea, 
of eourae, on occasion refer to the Faith, to Aristotle, or 
"^■^^ ^ ^•yitas . It la priaarily in function of these thrv>e 
iastnoaanUi that he handles his text. Ths text is rsaJsrod in- 
telligible through ths use of Prodoa and tim reduction of both 
ths text aad Procliui to the su^yoaitlonea PlatoBtoas i the re- 
sulting positions are distinguished; sons are found to -igrso 
with Proclus and to fall under the cundennation of ti^e ratio - 
positlo anal7sis| soas are freed and ^Ten a ss;vinB iatarpreta- 
tion. It is signlf leant that rionysius Is so ragilarly imrotod 
in both situationa, to aupport the poaitlon where it is ssTsd, 
to correct and counterpoise th9 position when It Is orroosovji. 
^Int Thcaas, we maj recall, explicitly eeleeted rionysliis ss 


BUMTcAu^^ aA^ nl •£ ad tMtCQlTMUNii •2n»^sXn «^ e<— ^'-' — 
-sib #o«sit» « bJto>va o;t Imia 'XAd^oeeiidq aAljr«i:^<i3*«Mi a lo tupli 

• '•itodwplf (C) levtaicflvhi V oo ^lsnhrx»r•ih>n ejoJbrvic? sM (S) 

«aridi •«M4i 1» cnlt^Mul si x£Jh(Mtbiq mt it tSiLlml ^ Xi'JP«lc 
"OX b(- w^..v. . •! ^x*# Mft •4xw» sU ■oti— d «i 4miJ miammniwmi 
dittd lo ooi«fM<ben 04* tea Mi«o«<i te «Mf (Ni^ jfaBonuil 9Ut^tU.»t 

-in 'j<U )£ _ _ od^ o>^ ioxXso^ fxiA tea/ •cU' 

• ^Atart ofi^ to oo^aoariinca sol tkocu Hal oi^ Iwsa atzlao^ c%ttm 

"ai^mtrtt^at ytjvsa & avr/^ tan btttf^ ftie mmm |«ie%£'n'^ £_ 

— ,....". ^vIvBTi ott «i KilMctioi^ #«0i tfnuUbcpt* at $1 u»H 

,b«vs« ftl ^ ^oq oAt itoq^OB oi ,afisJbtf«u^le H^d at 

.aL'OAeorrw ■! ir r.adv tn.Jitm^ «11 aiile^ t>«* i09Tio» o# 

aa aujb*\£|K>l<l 1^ .^9 -^JtaJUCfpc* «II«9fli vw aw ^saMotfl 


Mfl aain auctoritae in tha tlw^oloelcal cr5tlqu« at tha and of 
tha Oe aubatantila ^japaratj.a . It la iapraasiva •» and nlwaai 
aaualiifr >• to find tho Platonlxinc ilonyslua aalactad to apaak 
for Saint Thaaaa against tha Platonisera. No poaawJead darlea 
could ba motm effertlYef and perhaps ona is Juatifled in con- 
Jeeturlngf at least, that thla la daljberate and eonacloua 

But «• aiuat note that the atody indlcataa that balnt 
Ikaaaa* flexible treataent of Platonic poeitjona allova aa eren 
wider play of noleadeal strategy. Tha reduction of poaitlooB 
to the rejected via ?latonica allowa baint Xhonas to turn tha 
full force of his critique of Plato against othera by as8laila<» 
tint^-f to a greater or leaser degree , their poeltions to Platonic 
onea. Tliua positions of ATleenna« Avawpaaa and Avicebron are 
brcuxht under the general condemnation, (te the other hand, the 
poal tl0-<ittctorl taa treatment of Plato enables hia to use tha 
great naaaa of both tha outetandlng Greeks — Plato and Aris- 
totle — la eoostriieting his own doctrines and defending his 
own Tlaws. The aoet extandad exanple of this la In the aeeond 
part of the De Subetantiia Staparatis vbera Ariatotle and Plato 
are played off against the errors of subsequent and leaser 
piiiloeopbers. But p«rtiupB the oost striking case is the doubls 
use of Plato against the Averroistic doctrine of the separated 
agent Intellert. For, In sooe points. Saint ThoMaa is able to 
asslBllata Avarroistic positions to objectionable Platonic onea 


•ntvwh I ^ ^n .vtftainotAf^ 9d* .#«ntjpk nnoifT SmlaA ^m1 

-000 nl ft*illiwit i»i MR> aqsii^sq teft ,«vl.>i>f>*i^ itvm ad ftJbMM 

t9tMntiioi ■{bai» scSi is.l# •Am ^•ar Mr Jne 

•(Si trvti 0t MMdT inlsa nw>i o# 

•t« nyvi^oirA bos ••flqaavA «an(i»3lTA V< mmoi4tm>Q mttCt •••oo 
•di aaa oS mUL MlcfaAia o#aC^ )• JtMKtmn9 •aitM^fo m^ t^tmot 

brt^'MV arfi eil «1 •Mi 1© •JEqBBB» h-— - — - wTT «av«lv aM 
o^aTT baa ^Ifatmirk u%aam t «1# to S^Mtq 

- ' -^ 9di «i •••» jinliUvf* #nc«i fldl ?- -""^^ iuii .midqo«o£iifq 

o# •Idft at eaoMfr IsJs^a ttinioq enoa ni «w^ •JaaLtotnf 9a9%» 


wMls In others be can appeal to Plato in direct oppoaitiui to 

iTerroes and thoa assist hln in his effort to deprive Krm rv u ss 

of the support of the Oreek tradition. On this ooint it is 

sifnifieant that Siger ds Brabant accepted Saint Thonas' funda- 


critique of Platonism* 

If the argusient of this stucfy has been sound, if the 
evidence presented adequately supports that argumnt. If the 
future studies sni^:^sted hjr the roints treated herein confirm 
that arguannt and its cvidonce^ we will hare a clear ^rasp of 
the principles in the lif^ht of which Saint Thosas approached, 
iKSsaiaed, analysed, used and criticised what he himself desif- 
natss as ths theories, either directly or by reduction, belong- 
ing to Plato and ths Flatonicl . Moreover, we will be eqalppsd 
with the fundamental principles of interpretation r^cessaiy 
for the proper roaaing of the Plato and Platonicl texts of 
Saint ThooBS* 

All the conclusions of this chapter are, of course, sxib- 
ject to the linitations loposed (1) by the present iaperfect 
•tato of ThoBlstic scholarship I (2) by the liaitations of area 
set up for thp study itself j and (1) by the inevitable shcrt> 
conlngs of an individi:al effort. 


eittt II «lttamrs^ «Ml# ' '^ • - ... 

aRUljRo mttmH kmima^ atsfoq Ad^ t* »^ '^ 

3 ^iieXo • (MTMl IXlv «Mr («9a«bly» A#l has Hnmujiyt 

Id tjB»i i r[ iMB o&mTi «a Is ,, 

-diM ^ to ^•'ta •mfv(aii9 ^/(# Id captwXasMo •'l^ liA 

iotfl^aqBl twatnq 9^ xH (1) aSkmti adJ 9^ #Mt 

=— * - ^"-?intl «» ^ (S) ic*'— ' - "• - -^ »o »*■*• 

tv •■■ ' 

'»«rt U $96 




1. In S. Kt. i2J. 

2. In ftettor , ilj. 

3. S«« "D«l«ctatlo." 

h» Th»»e four areas include the following entries: "Abatractio,* 
"Aniaa," "BonuB," "Causa," "Cowaunls," "Corpus" (in part), 
"r«l," "'"«us," "Esse," "Fssentia,'" "Exeaplar," "Forwa," 
"Genua," "Hono," "Idea," "Intellectus," "Intelligere,* "In- 
teUlgibilia," "Materia" (in part), " Parti d pare," "^artlcl- 
patio," "Praodicatio," "Ratio," "Sclentla," "Species," 
"Substantia," "Unitaa" (in part), "Universale," "DnnaP (in 
part } . 

5. See "Corpus" (in part), "Dualitaa," "Linea," " MatheMtiea" 
(in part), "NuTBenia," "Punctua," and "Unu»" (in part), 

6. CoHpare, for example, De Ver . U7J and S.T, i3J. 

7. CoWare He Sub. Sep , ilj and S,T, t3J« 

8. E,g. O ptlwl est optiriim adducero in Tje W. llh 
CoMp , Tn, , 72, 

10. For a RWieral review of the nsthods appropriate to the 
proper reading of St. Thooaa, see Chenu, Introduction a 
I*^tnde de Saint Thonaa d'Aquin . Chenu presents the main 
varies on chronolo(?y, nethods and technique and so forth, 
Wuaj stuflifis of special rrobloas In St. Thomas contain 
valuable reflections on iBethodoIofgr. For exaaple, Oeifer, 
La Participation dans la phlloeophie de S. Thoaas d*Aquin , 
pr?. 17 -2ft. Despite air"of this, ^.owevw^, the student of 

J and in 

i ■ 

e a T « 

»^ * 

11 TRM 




%ol#M-ii8(fA** tTO TbielXe) «i^ •faifMRt atmvk tool «aM(T .4 

,(i^»cr r1) ^ txu -»Mr*3m^" *,- " ci mi) 

''* ■ ^ -UJ •▼•8 fcrto ITIJ . *»▼ 20 ^ilqimum «t f«»mqm3 •* 

111 hm lilT) ,j^ tf «» r ~ •• 

•ditol o« bos iKfplru(9W : jw 

ll€iMt Part IT 597 
Inirodnr^ti on 

St. Thooaa Is still handicapped by lack of neeeaaary in- 
atrtaianta — texts, oditlonSy Indicee, backfpround attidlas, 
and so forth. Chenu points out a nuaber of those needs in 
hla Notes de Travail" which follow the chapters of his 
baok (••£• pp. 107-196). On probleas relating to the Arls- 
totellan'^coaBentarieSf see Isaac, '*Saint Thoaas Interpr^te 
daa — vi 'ae de Aristote ' ( Acta Coagreaaua Schol asticl Inter - 
■ati—lls . 1950). 

AH of this places llndtations on any curront study of 
St. Tboaas and lea:vea it open to inevitable future revlaion. 


- -- -^ Ui 

It 1»»rt TT C98 
Chapter T 


!• Sine* this text is oaed m • priiw ffxaocla, it ia her* fti^ma 
with ita full contaxtt "Dicandua quocJ, quia noatra eocnitlo 
a aansu Ineioit, aanaua aaiiaa corporalluB aat, a prinBlpio 
hoainaa da veritata inqnliVBtaa, aolaa naturaa co rpara — ea- 
pare potuarunt, in tanttm quod priai naturalaa philoaophi 
nihil aaaa nlai corpora aaatiaabant; anda at ipaaai airtw 
corpus aaaa dicebant. Qttoa atiaa aacvti ^dantur Manlchaai 
haaratiel, qui Daua lucam qoaadan eorperaaa, par infinita 
diatanaaa apatla esse existinabant. Sic etlan et Anthropo- 
■(Mrphitaaf qui Daua llnaaaantia tanBanl corporla fignrataa 
aaaa conatruebant( nihdl ultra corpora aaaa auapicabantur* 

Sad poaterioraa philoeopiii, rati o;iiabili tor par intallec- 
twi corporalia tranacendantea, ad eoitnitlonaai ineorporaaa 
aobatantiaa pervanerunt. Qnonai Anaxafroraa prlaua, quia po- 
aabat a prinelpio onnia corporalia in invicaa aaaa iodxta, 
coaetua fuit ponerm aupra corporalia aliquod incorparami non 
nixtun, quod corporalia dlatingnaret et ao^arat, Et hoe vo> 
eabat intallectun diatlagaantaa at noTantaa oomiay qaaa aoa 
dlcinua Daua. Plato varo aat alia via vana, ad oonaadan 
aubatantiaa ineorporaaa. Aeatinavlt anirr quod anta aaaa 
parti eipana* nacaaaa aat ponaro aliquir^ abatraetun noo par> 
ticipatan. Oada e«a n—i1a eorpora aanaibilia partleipjaat aa 
quaa da Ipais praadioantur, acil. natnraa ttanainia at apaela- 
raa at alianai vnivaraalitor da ipaia dlctoruB, peaoit holiiB-' 
■adi naturaa abatractaa a aenalbillbaa par ae aidwistaataa^ 
quaa aubatantiaa aaparataa noninabat. 

Ariatotalaa varo proeaaalt ad poaandoB aidtatantlaa aapa- 
rataa ax parpetultata eaelaatis aofias. Oportet erda caalas- 
tia laotua aliquen finca ponera. 31 aatea finia alieuiva bo> 
tus non saapar aodaa aodo aa babaat, aad aovaator per 99 val 
per aoeldana, naeaaaa aat aotaa iUna aen mtspmr anLforrdter 
am habere ) unda aotua naturalia BTSvioa et leTiTin aagia la. 
tanditur, cua appropiaqua-varit ad hoe quod aat aaaa ia loco 
proprio. Vldaam ma%am in aotibua eaalaatiua eorpenai aaa- 
par UB)far<9itataa aarrarl, ax qao axiatiaavit huiua unif or- 
al n '^tua perpetuitatea. Oportebat igitur ut rooeret finaa 
iKilua aotoa aon ao-farl nae per B9 nee per accidana. Gana 
autaa eorpus vel quod aat in corpore, aobjla eat per ae vel 
par aoddena. Sic ergo aaeaaaarlua fait quod poaarat ali- 
qiiMB avbatantlaa oanino a corpora aaparatae, quaa eaaat 
finia aotoa caaleatia • 

Tn hoe autav vidantur trea praadiotaa poaltionaa dif- 
ferre, quad Aaaxagoraa non haboit neoeaaa oonere, aacundua 
prineiria ab eo supposlta, nlai unan aubatantiaa Ineorporaaa. 

t«, ^eae ni/rrxoo 

tl shiO(rsi>3 tRMUod ali £ mtattt tap «& 

IB,' « ^oraif aJhr aUrn tm onm •/«!* .mmO mMitntb 

e 1 ea i»«t •<'<=''^ • * aa^oc'tfadii 

••alaas aisia .aoJaar allaaXnaa aJ*rix it 

.ffaa mo'Kxrmo aaii^aaiaao awlliloa nt aairtn uatttiit^ xq 

. . . « f t • _ - . Jl A Q.^-^. - — 

ecmO .aoafetuaa loq Ma aa laq aati rtaroa 

^aaaa aaop «3alaiUKia8 avxtias 

>ltb ct^nol^ieoq aa^aifoaairi avri 
3Btsbntt9»u ^»^l^llm^ a«a»9«i ila^d ne>a - >1 

It Pvt IT 599 
Cbaptmr I 

Plato autmi iMcaaae hatniit pooera aultaa at ad Invlcaa ordl. 
natas, laewiwi aultltudinaa at ordlnaa gaoarwi at apacleron, 
at alloma quaa abatraeta ponabat) poavlt aida prlam ab> 
atractun, quod asaantialiter oaaet bonus et unua, et conae- 
quantar divaraoa ordinea IntalllRlbiliuB at i ntallactuta. 
Arlaiatalaa aut«t poauit plnraa aubstantlM aaparataa. Tub 
anln in caalo apparaant anlti actus, quortia gnwillbat ponebat 
aaaa tmlfaniaai at perpetoTaii ouivalibet autam motoa oportat 
aaaa allqvaa proprlaa flBaat ex ttuo finia talla aeitaa dabai 
•mB9 aubatantia inearparaaf conaaquana f ult ut pooarat Boltas 
avbatantlaa Incarporeaa, ad lirricatc ordinataa aaa a a du a aata- 
rmm et ordlnaa eaalaatlua Botunm. Mac ultra in aia paoaadla 
proeaaaity quia oroprloa phlloaophiae elua fuit a aanifeatls 
Pfon diacadere. 

Sad iataa viae bob aunt oultua aobia aceoaBodaai quia ne- 
que poniBUs BixtioMB aanaibilitta crm Anaxaeora» naqua ab- 
stractioneB uniTorsaliua cvoi Platoney aequo perpetuitataa 
Botua eaa Ariatotala. Dai* opartat noa aliia viia proeadara 
ad BMdfaatatlonaB propoaiti," IJia bp. Creat., 5» o. IK 61t- 
66j. ~ 

The best known exaapla of thia tise of ria ia in the qidnqoa 
▼laa of S«T,y I, 2, 3» e.t "Dicandua q;aod Dana aaaa gfuiaque 
▼ii a proSari potest ..."ergo (»8t naeeaaa pon»ra aliquaa cau- 
»ma effleienten prlaaa.... iirgo necesse sat poner^ aliquld 
quod alt per se nocessarlu™." Another -trikln? and fornal 
iaataaee ia the diaeaaaion of Plato 'a poai tion in tha Vm 
8ab « Sag. ilj ahara aa find the following oattem of teir»> 
••Unde ^ato sufflcientlori Yla procaasit ... poauit ... r>o - 
wabat ... ponebant ... paaabant ultariaa. . . « >)nda ponabant 
... i>opebant ... pooeban t ... ponebant .... Ha;)oa autaa po^ 
aitienia radix ... et idao Ariatotalaa aanifaatlori at car- 
tiori TJ a lyoeaaait ... aeilicat per riaa rrotus." Cf, 

3,i , 

t22Jj In T ' ent ., l5, 1, 1, aol.j In £. -^aull ad Roaanoa , 
1, 6) Da Sp . Craat ., 3, c; In n Uata., 10 l653j. Poaitio 
nay, o?~eour8e, be used Tor any atataaent or aasei^lon, not 
only for one afcich conoludea an arguaent but e^en for thoaa 
froa whjich the arguaant pr o e aada ( ^bowf "Laxikon , b. poai - 
tio a £•}. Peaitio hare, hoaaTar, ia baing datarainad vith 
regard to its uae in a pattern of analyais. 

3. q.O. De Aniaa , 6, c. 

li. Tha ratio L rationaa j •> poaitio pattern ia axkranaly cofnon. 
Far exaaplaa aae In I fcta ., h i79jj In H Ifeta .. 3 U79$J; 
Da ^jub, Sep ., 10 tP 6iij| TJa Ver. , 21,T, c.| In T re An., 6 

Tp 71i; Is ' 1« L« £i J'»"^ Is"<jOj. For ratio in thia aa 
aae Tboaas -Laxikon » a«' "ratio , k. 

■nrO tl 




• S 




•£ <^ «f: .£ •£ 


It pvt n 600 

Chapter I 

5* Otter mamploB ar« to be found In In Uota . l5jL?0j{ In I 
■'tet* .. 3 (61-63 J. 

6. Tn 7 ".eta .. S [C 97J, 

7. ^ ^. Great ., 3, c. iK Uo^lj. 

8. De Stab. Sep. Uj. Cf. « aub . aep., 7 IP it9jj In I Meta ., 
T'(^MS3j; C.j. LlOjj bTf., I, nS, 3, £.; &.T. (.26 j; a.T., 
I, 1x9, 3, cT|~Ccmtra ftetra . a Rel. IngrT , 67 Ave rr oe e t""''Kt 
eat poajtlo falsa ... et boo aeeunriua radlcee eoru-a, quenlaia 
Ipal dlcunt ( Peat , ^eat., lit lll9Bj)f ... haee nosltio ant 
ax radlclbaB....* ( rb?d . llX6Cj). 

9. In Sent . [20 jj cf. ATerroaat "Kt hoc manifeatuB eat oi qui 
eonalSarat fwadaaantxaa Irlstotnlia,'* Tie Sab. Orb., 1 i5-rlj. 

10. Cf. OeifTor: "En fait, hi.storjquenant, S. Thoaaa a*cat trouv^ 
an prtfaence de deux ayatbaea, ainon entl^reaent purs, da 
meAJoa notteawnt difftfrencl^.... Noob aontrarona qn' alias 
rapr^santaiit daa ayatkaae aebr;T^, parfaiienant eoh^ranta, 
qui d<^elappent avec udb ripueur lueide lea dem'^rva conse- 
qvanoaa de leiir poaltion Inltiale, * Participation , d. 30. 

11. IB I j^ An., 6 i? 71j. 

12. In Mata. L3?J; cf. In Lt^. i21J) In Meta. L3lij; In I>e An. 
i31J| In I i5 An., 3~it^ 71j. 

13. ^or eritlqae and rejection of the poait^ o , aee e.£. S.T. 
l3J| In De ]Ajr. M05. llj| De Ver.. 3. 1. ad itf C.G. TUl. 
Par rrltiqiia of the ratiowea , aee e.f. In lleta .~Ll2j| S.T., 
I, UU, 3, jri 3; l5?jj iJe a^. Sep . ilJ. 

Ih. De bp. rreat ., 3, c. iK U?-4i5i. 

15» ^ >">ab . :.-ep > ilj. 

16. In Sent . L20i. 

17. K,£. S.T., I, 3, 8, c. 

18. Iltli refjard, far exaaple^ to the Platanlc pr laqa bcnvni ; 
(a) Ilajectlan of ]rla and ratlonea , re ^er. II7J (firat 
part); De Sab . Sep . ilj; In ivth. Lli7l7i; (b) Acceptance of 
the Doaitlo t S.Tr"["<j; TnTeTTv. N05. LlJ. 

19. Fabro, La ^oglone ^tataflalca dl Parteclpaaione aecondo S. 

Tonaao r^Agulno , pp. 5H-59. " 

11 #t«^ t« 

TnluOSJi?: ' sk baaoJ " '" .^ 

Hi «• «( 

^«w c 



•T. »»• « 9C*i te» 












^ .to 


«Q «9inmd9ft sa«^«x» ••£> 

/rf .XI 

I ilJBi . »la H .SI 

.1 ^' ' -J 

.9 .ft .e .T . .s .Tx 

r X _ A 

NoUst Part TI 601 
ChapUr I 

20. S.T. t3j. 

21. Sm Chapter 7T. 

?2. "A DTlao Ipltur per suaa esaantlasi ente et bono, unuaqtiadqtia 
potest did bonun et ena, inquantoa narticirat Ipava par oo- 
diB etilusdan aa8l?<tilatlonl8. Heat renote at def id enter, ut 
ax auperioribuB patet. Sic or^^o unuaquodque dlcitur bonua 
booltata dlvina, sicut prlao principlo exaorlari, effactiTo 
•t finali totius bonitatis. Nlhilonlnus tamen uniioquodque 
dlcitur bonuB aimilitadinB Hlvlnae bonitatia aibi liAiaerante, 
qua* eat formal! tar sua bordtaa danoMlnana ipeuai. Et ale aat 
bonltas una ofoiiuig; et etlaa nultaa bonltataa," S.T. , I, 6, 
ii, c. 

23. "Dlcondum quod aliquld cul non fit additio poteat intalligl 
dnplidter. 'Jno nodo, ut da rati one elua sit quod non flat 
al addltioj sicut da ratione aniralis irratlorialis eat, ut 
alt alne ration©. Alio nodo intelllgitur aliquid cul non fit 
additlo, quia dod eat de ratione eixm quod sibi flat «ddltlo; 
alcut anlaal eowaaa aat sine ratione, quia non eat da raticna 
airiaalia coBnunia ut habaat rati ones, aad nee de rationa alus 
aat ut caraat ratione. Prlmo if^tur nodo, aaae alne addltl- 
oae eat ease divinuB; aecundo nodo, ease alne addltlooa eat 
aaaa ccaBune," S.T., I, 3, Ix, ad 1. 

2lt. "Adhue. Quod est eo— una nultls, non eat aliquid praeter 
■tUta nisi sola rationa: sieut anisal non est aliud praatar 
Socrates et Platonen et alia anlnalia nisi Intellectu, qui 
apprahendit forraan anlnalla exspoliatan ab onnlbua individu- 
antlbua et specif icantibua; bono enio est quod yers eat anl- 
■all alias aaqueretur quod in Socrate et Platona esaent plura 
aniaalla, aellleet Ipsua anlBal conmjne, et bono conmunlB, et 
Ipse Plato, i^to igitur nlnus et ipsua aaaa connune est 
aliquid praetar oonea r9» oxiatentea niai in intellectu ao- 
Ixm. iii igitur Deua ait ease connuna, Deoa non erlt allqua 
raa nisi quae alt in intellectu tantua. 08t«naua aataa aat 
aopra r^eua esse aliquid non aolun In intellectu, aad In rarui 
natura. Han eat Igitur Daua ipaua aaaa eoaiuna obbIib,'' 
^.0., I, 26. 

25. Chenu, "Auctor, actor, autor," Arch . Lat . Hedil Aevi, 1927, 
pp. 81-86; Introduction a I'Ktude de Saint Thoaaa t'Aquln , 
pp. 106-125 J niquet, "^iaint Thooaa F'Aquin et les 'Auctori- 
tates* en phlloeophle," Arch , da Phil ., " ol. 3, No, 2 (1-725), 
pp. 122-l55i 

26. S.T. 156 J. 

£0d IT ^^uff aM^cX 

r " 

•It io4' : tl% 


,J ^i «*i*£ \:-a^ii:;^-;^-^': iiL^ix:^ -iX^i.-i it: ;,'^ii^.: e; 

tnalfmn 9b l»e ^sa 'tto'ian •aim ^« a 

Je4 Qoot^ttxis Mia •«» «oiNMt owvms . jm eoo 


•I bm «u «f (I ««^>^ 







s«p/l« /rw oon mmii « sea* j/^n «#•<! X 



art. T 


27. S.T. [58 J. 

?8, C.O. 15 J. 

29. S.T. t3j. 

30. Db V«r. (17 J. 

Ml n Hm f 

•0.9 .as 

Q .Ot 

Rot«St T^MTt Tl Cos 

Chapter IT 


1. S.T. t52j. 

2. S.T., I, 8ii, U, 0.1 5, C. 

3. 8.1«» I» Wi, ?, c. 
U. Tbid. 

$, iB T Ifcta., I [C 71J. 

6, In IT Vatrn ,, 1 IC 287]. 

7, Pe Sub, S«r>., 1 [P IJ. 

8, The AtJi^uatlnlan nonent 58 osltted fro* ^.T., I, 8lj, 1, £., 
8lne<> the h5atorie«l nattom la spread through the entire 
question. The Aujniatlnlan noMont appears In a separate 
article t5i. 


n ftsnuso 

,, . 

•II ^1 1 t.a!« .Are •« .Y 

•<7 » at mMqfa ^ntww iwlnt<rtBi' o 

II PWt IT 60ti 
CtmpXmr III 
SMUon 1 


1. "Dleei^uB, ad oTidentiaa holus qiia«atioals» quod prlJd. phl- 
loaopfai qui de naturls reroB inqulsivanuit, pota-vwnmt ni- 
hil MM in aniBdo prseter ear]->us," ^»2.'» ^» ^» ^* -*' 
*Dic«ndDa qnod aatlqvi ptdloaophi paulati* et quasi pacte- 
tantia intr«T«rtint in oognitionw twitatl*. A prineipio 
mniM quaal sroasiope* •xlMtentem, nan exlatimabsnt mm 
•Biia nisi corpora aMWiUXlat" £i«l«f ^i W*, 2» £•» "••• 
selondtHi Mt quod quttdaai antlqui phtloBOfriil, non ponontM 
allm Tiaa eognoseiti-vai praetor seasta, naqM allqua antia 
praetor ■onolbllia," Do S^. Croat ., 10, ad 8| •Prlul quideia 
igitur phlloooptoantiwi do rervm naturls sola coirpora oaso 
aastiaaTorunt, pooantM priea prinoipia allqua corporoa ole- 
aisy aut plura aut noDBf* Do Sub, 3or- ,» !• T" *^ JJS. ^2^» 
>, AnaxaRoras Is oxcoptod Tron thfi~chargo of oatoriallan 
„J is. In fact, ono of tho tlvM aneiont appaaantai "Huic 
aatOB opinionl triplici ria (-AraxagorM, Platonis, Arlsto- 
talis) rMtlterunt antioui philoeophi." In tho sho-tor and 
•harpor sketebes /lnaxai?oras is osittodt cf. In III Do An., 
2 IP 595Ji C.O., I, 20} In I «2ta., 7 LC iBlj; In IV Itota., 
5 iC 593JI S.T., I, cii, ?, c. 

2. "... eui Ipsi intonderont cognoscore vorltaton do ontihos, 
ot ▼idoratur ois quod sola sonsibllla «itla osaant, totlns 
■varitatis docrtrinaa dijudieaTsrunt ox natora aaoslblliim 
In n Msta ,, 12 (C 68lj. 

3. "Dicondua, ad oTidontia« tattiaa qnaastlonls, quod prlai phi- 
loooptai qui da natoris rona inq^ilai^runt, putavcnint nihil 
oaaa in Moido praotor corpus* £t quia vldobant oonia corpora 
■bbilla esse, ot nutabaat oa in continue fluxu osse, oxisti- 
■KTorunt quod nulla cariitado da roran Torltata habori poa- 
Mt a nobis. Quod enia Mt in eontinuo fluaa, por cortitu- 
dlnait apprahandl mm notest, qaia priae labitar qoarr nonte 
dlivdleotor} olent Ueraelitas dixit qood •bob Mt poaslblU 
aqasB flavii currantls bis taaftoro,* ut rooitat Philoeefptea 
in IV iotaoh.," S.T., I, 81i, : "... aiitiqai phUoaaphi 

... dixorunt quod nulla cart e veritato a nobis habori 

potast} ot hoc orortor duo. Pri«o quidon, quia pooobant 
sanalMlia saapar aMa in fluxo ot nihil ^ robaa assa sta- 
^ile." be bp. CrMt . U7j» "Undo ^lato suffidantiori via 

ii / i-^ -.-'.•T- 

11! saruito 


.';iA Lio! 




bOR 1- ft" 


^9jidHam •b animilttpr ttf^etstno^ Jwe^9biff)iai Imri am •••* •$ 

' ' " " Aiaa ^1 si t. 

Irrfla . 1 BtiBiae sb tup iitqvaoX 


oj J noA* boar ttxtb zuStSoMftoH tmf ■ ±l» 

£n, .. .-- ..•• ;-„ . . . . - ^ ^ 

II Piurt II ta$ 

Chapi«r III 

proowlt ad opinlonm prlaana Natural lua •▼acuaadaa. Cua 
onla apwl antlquoa NataralM oenarctur ak oMdbttS 
rerua varltataa seirl son posaa, twi profJiar rvrui 
liVB oontimnm floxna, Xmt {>ropt«r daoeptloBMi aaaauua, 
qidbufl corpora eognoaomturi poault naturaa quaadaa a aata" 
rla fluxibilloa raraa aapai^atas, In quSbus «a«at wltaa 
flxa; at sic els Inhaorendo aniaa nostra varitataa eoffnosea- 
^^*" 11? ^* Sao., 1| "Ft dldt quod qoidMi, aeillaai Hara- 
elltua ot aJQS Baquacos, dlzarunt quod oania quaa aant, san* 
par novantur, non solua quaedar:, aut allquandoi sed notua 
latet sanaua nostrun. ' u1 si loquerontur de aliqaibua aotl. 
buB, eanaa dietoa sustinerl roasatt sunt enia all qui mstmm 
qui noa latant. bad quia non datar^^aant da quail taotu lo- 
quantur, sod dlcunt de omibus notibus, Ideo non est dlffl- 
cila contra illos abllearaf qala anltl sattia mmtp da quibus 
■anlfaatua est quod non poaaunt seapar tme^f" In VIIJ Ply», 
5 Ui. <-f. In iteta. i6jt7j; In n ileta., 1 ic~?8lj; jSlV 
Wsta ., 12 lC~SE(r3Hlj; In XI >leta.,"TTc 223e-22hOi; In V 
Pbar.. 6 I7j; In VI Phy., 13 Ll^TIi In VIII Ptj^., S lU-lOij 
19 L5j; In Tm Trln.lTIj; In I 1« An., 3 IP 39j; 5 iF 60j| 
In ni £• £. et ;., 2 tfa 555j. 

U. "^t iianc opinLoBBM habult Cratylua* qui ad uitiaam ad banc 
der«ntiaa davanlt, quod opinatva oat quod non oportabat all- 
quld vsrbo dirare, aad ad oaqsriaaBdua quod volebat, acvabat 
aaluB dlitltua. r:t hoc idao» quia eradabat quod varltas ral 
qoaa ^olahat anuntiara, prlao tranaibat* quaa oratlo finira- 
tar. Bzwlori antaa apatlo diffitua laoTabat. lata antaa 
Cratylna rafMrabandlt wl inerapa-vlt Haraelltua* Uaraclitua 
aala dixit quod non poteat hcao MLa Intrara In aodaa flu- 
■ina, quia antaquan intrat sacundo, aqua quaa erat fliuslnis 
jam dafluxnrat. Ipaa aniaa aodatlsaTlt, quod nae aaaal po- 
taat bono Intrare In auadai nirriua, quia anta atiaa qaaa 
aaael Intrat, aqua flnmlnls daflult et surer-vsndt alia. Et 
Ita non solum atlaa non ::iotAst hosio bis loqul de re allqna 
antaqufli diapoaltia aatatur, sad atiaa nae s«m1," In TV 
llsta., 12 iC 6Slj. baa 3 abore. 

5, Aa aa shall a—, St. Thoaas hlaself will nalntaln that 8< 
points of stability and daterBlnatlon must be found In nata* 
rial balaga If knoaladRa of thssn la to be poaalbla. "Et 
Ideo si natura rama sanaibHim aaapar ^^arButatur et 'oaRi> 
no,* idast quantua ad oanla, Ita qaod nihil in aa eat flxua, 
aon eat allquid detern^nate vsrua dicera dm Ipsa," In IV 
■sia ., 12 ic 683j. 

6. "Saeundo, quia iaveaiontur circa idea allqul diTaralaodi 
iodicantes, siout alitor Tlgilana at all tar doralena, at 
alitor infiraua, alitar saauaj oac potest accipl allquid 
quod dlaeax-oatur quia borua Terlua ezistiast, cua qulllbat 



nvj . ■ "'T 

^— > V-- ,A 

,r I 

~>^ ■• ^jp 

^• ai , All 

.. - . >'X 


<tfC 9 


„ - . -. .- _.^ lO 

•.•n Msboft 111 vun^R/ aid om»A Hotoa tma bomn IJbdtfe sIitd 

-■. -- . -^t 

Mftop 9uit» atlBA •IvD .« ut an. tmti 

ft tf '«£■■•« soft ni^ft tea (•b7«»#«« r '« 

It Part TT 606 
Chapiw TTT 
•wtion 1 

aliqvMi aiallltudlnsp) vsHtatl* habeat," De Sp. Cr^at . [17 j. 
"Cub •idiii apud antlquoa natwralM pamrwtur Sb oSKb Mr- 
tat raroa Tarltataa aelrl non po a— , tarn proptar rvnn cor- 
porallna aontlnum fluxum, tun propter dacaptionua aansuini 
quibua corpora eornoscuntur;..." De .SvA>, 3ay « ilj, Cf, In 
17 Mata .. 11 IC 660-670 J I li» [r 69?-T57j. 

7. *Bia ■!««■ aaiiarvaBiana Plato, trt noaaet salTara eartan 
aoRHltlonaB Wrltatis a nobis r>ar intellectoa haberl...." 
S.T. i52i. 

8. "Unda Plato aufflclantlorl via processlt ad oplnlonaB prljK>> 
run Haturallua avaeuandaB," Pa Sub. .'^e p . Llj. 

9. "lam ipaa [ Plato j ut studioaua erat ad varltatia inqulsiti- 
onaa, uMque tarrarun -ihiloeonhoa ofaaasl'vlt, ut «<nraB dog- 
mata sdrat," In JJwta. t5J. 

10. "Hoe autam rana arat apud antiqvoa ut al^quis anora verlta- 
tis eont«nr!landaff ab moA dalectatlone Tsneraa abstlnerati 
qaod solus -^lato Isgltur feclase," S.T. [9?j. 

11. "Cxm enlB naturales phlloso'-ihoe, qui in Oraaela fuarunt, ae- 
q«l T^.daret, at Intra aoa allqui noatarioraa po n ar a n t onnla 
aaoaibllia savpar aaaa In fluxu, at quod sclantia da ala eaaa 
non poteatf quod pcauarunt iieraclitxis et Cratylua, hujusoodi 
paaitldnlbiia tanqoan noirla Plato conauetua, at cub ala con- 
veniens in hac poaitione ipaa poaterius its eaaa suscepit, 
uada dixit particularimi acibilim aeientiaa warn rallnquan- 
daa. Socrates atlaie qui fait riagiater Plato*da>" In yta , 
l6i} "Uada at Plato taaquas ejus auditor, 'reeiplens Socra- 
taai,' Idaat aaqnans ," ibid . t7j. '.f. T)e S£. Great . llTJj 

In Meta . l35JU8jtllljIl5ojj In Post . Anal . l3Ji In l|e Trin. 
nijj also Iwoliad in Tje Sub. 5er. LlJl^sTf. i?2J. 

!?• "Plato vero, discipulua aiua Lb£» Soeratiai conaantlafta anti - 
qiula philoaophla quod aanaibilla aa^par aint in fluxu, eX 
quoj virtos aensltJTa non habet certms iodlcitti de rabca a* 

Pe S2. Great . tl7J. 

13. 3-I. 152 J. 

1U« "Plato ... poault qaidan ex una oarte apeciea reran aapara- 
taa a aanaiMlibua at iinnobilf>8, da qulbus dixit aaaa ael- 
estlaa} ex alia parte poavit in honine Tlrtutea cogw e ltlTa-!! 
avpra aenaon, acil. laantan ^rel intelleotuB," T« ^. Croat . 
[17 J. In this text the "ex una parta" refaraTo the diffl- 
eol^ of findlnK objoeta for aeientific Imoaledffai tha "ex 
alia parta" rafara to the unreliability of sanae knowled^r. 
r,f. Da Sab, Sen. ilJi S.T. [52j[5«>Jj Tn T '«cta ., 10 j 15-17 
paaeia . 

a^ n *-?^' tz7~f-M 


f(. mas (f 








-»# t" .01 


• ■ 


L J ' * . 


V. - 

J • J- • 












>i Hrt II 607 
cr«pt«r III 
omUmi 1; ? 

15* "Plato rmro e eontrario irefars to I««oorltuai poault in- 
t«llsctua diffarrs a s«nau at ietalleetaB <|al4«i ••«• vlrtu- 
t«a iatratarlalam organo earp«reo man utaataa la suo actu«" 
i.T. 159 i. Cf. Ibid. 1 37 J. 

16. "Sic erfto LPlat.oj dlcebat solentias et dafinltlonea at qaid- 
quld ad aetun intellectua p«rtln»t non refarri ad lata cor- 
pora sansibiUa sad ad ilia IvDatarlalia at aaparata*" :>.!. 

Section 2 

1. "Arlstotelea autam par aliaa: viao parrexit. Prlrso anls aul- 
tipllciter oatendlt In aensiblllbaa essa allquld stabile. 
SecundOf quod judicium sanaua Tann eat da sanaibllibua pro- 
prilSf sad dacipitur circa sensibilia coBnunla« tutgia anteo 
droa sanaibllia par accidana. Tartlo« quod supra sanavcs 
aat vlrtua IntallaetiTa qiiaa judlcat da varitata," Da Sg, 
Craat . 117 jj cf. S.T, t52i. 

2. la rv Mata., ll-lU iC 669-69IJ. Cf. S.T. i52j in ahieb U5.« 
saoticm Is explicitly rafarrad to. 

3. In IV Meta .. 12 tC 681-631,; cf. In XI Meta .. 6 [223i4-22l«Oi. 

U* "Assi^nat oauBSB praaaissae oplnionis ex parts sensibiliiaii 
seillcat quae causa ^aaddctae oninionis atlan ex parte san- 
slbiliuB pooabatur. Kaa^ cua sansibile sit prios seoau na- 
turalitar^ oportat ouod disDoeitio sansutai saqaatur aanslbi- 
llua dispoaitionsB. Asslgnat auten ex parte sanslblliaa 
dupllcen causae; quaruft secunda ponitur,lbi, *Anpllua autea 
omiiua etc.* Plclt orgo prlreo, quod causa o^^lnionis praadie- 
toruB pfalloa^borua fult, quia cua ipsl iatenderent casaaseara 
Terltatan de entibus, et rlderetur eis quod sola sensibilia 
entia essant, totlus veritatis doctrlnaa dijudicaverunt ex na- 
ture sansibillua ranai. In rebus autan seneibillbua aultun 
est de nature inflniti sItb indetemlnati, quia in els eat 
aatorla, quae quantua est de se non datertainatur ad uoua, sad 
eat in potantia ad aultas foraast at est in eis nature entia 
siaillter ut dlxinus, videlicet quod esse rerua seoaibiUua 
aon eat deterainatunj sad ad diversa se habens. Unde noa est 
airua si non doteniinataa coprdtlanaa Ingarit senslbua, aad 
buic sic, et alteri alitor. 

Et propter hoc praadicti philosonhl deeentsr siva verl- 
slalllter loquuntur rntione praodicta. Hon taaea Terua dl- 
cunt in hoc quod r.oaunt niMl deterainatua mua* in rebus sen- 
slbillbuB. Naa licet aateria quantua eat de ae indaterainate 


S , 

-bfvo to V ' ,b£ 

-JL.C. " .X 


I .S 

1 -f 

fo ».♦■ "r* S3'" * •ii 




9T- f 


O - 
KM . 

i a 

€,.: a 

II Part IT 
Cbaptmr III 
SaetloR ? 

M habaat ad aultas forma, tanen n«r forsai daiaralnatur 
ai nnw aedtai aaaendi. Ihida eia raa cogaaaaMtur par sum 
tvmmm Mcla q«MH per mteriaa, ram eat dlcandaa quod non 
poaalt habari da rtibua aliqua detaralnata eoimitio* fct la- 
■Mqola wrlaiHllltudlnaB allquaa habat aorun opinio, aacia 
omsralt dlcera alcut Ipal dleebant, qtun alcvt dlclt fcpl- 
ehamns «d Xanophanoa, qui forte dlcobat oonla imobllia at 
"**r*'SJ* ***** ** ^'*'^ cartltudineB adrl," In IV Mata .. 

5. "Kt Idao Arlatotalaa nanifaatiori at cartiori via procaaait 
ad InvaatigandtB aubatantlaa a sataria aaparataa, aeilieat 
uer Tiaa motua," Da Sub. ^., 2. -Prim autaa at aanifaa. 
tlor via eat, quaa auiiittir ax oarta •otaa. CmrUm est enla 
et aenan cow tat aliqua aoveri in hac wwdo," S.T.,~i7 TT" 

6. "Deinda eon dlcitt Fora autan ate., oxclodit aaeundai aa^ 
brunt quo ponobatur ab Ueradlto oania seapar acrvari. Jit 
prioo conparat hane 0Dini«ne« praaeadanti opiniani, qoaa 
ponebat onia ea^sar quSeacerai at dicit quod dieara omia 
laorori aaoDar, ut Horaclltus dixit, aat quidaa falaua et 
contra princlriia aeiantlaa naturalia ; sad taiaan aiBua rapng. 
nat arti haee poaitio quaa prima. Ft quod quidaa rapucaet 
arti aanifeattai eatj quia tollit suppoaitlonea aeieatlaa Ba> 
tnralia, in qua ponitur quod natura non solua eat prlneipiua 
aotoa, aad etlan quietisj et ale patat quod aiai liter natu- 
rala aat quiee, aieut ©t isotua. Unde aieut orlna opinio, 
quae dastruebat notua, erat pojitra sclentiaa naturales; ita 
•t haae noaltio quaa daatruit quiatara, — Idao autaa dixit 
haaa opinionea esse ainua praetor artea, quia quies nihil eat 
aliad quan privatio -lotus: quod autaa non ait privatio aotua. 
■aRis potest latere quaa quod ncm ait aotua," In VTT'' Phy.. 

5 UJ« — -^^ 

7. "Sad contra eat quod aelentla cat In intellectu. SI ergo In- 
telleetus non copnoscit corpora, aaqultur quod nulla scien- 
tia sit de corporibua, it sic oerlbit seiantia naturalla, 
ouae eat de corpora aobili,- ^.'i., i, Six, 1, sad contra : 
■Sad hoc duplidter apparet falaua. Priao quidea, quia cun 
Ulaa apaalaa aint iaaatarialea at l3«>blles, exclndaratur a 
scicntlls cognitlo aotua et aatoriae quod eat propriua sci- 
ratlaa naturalis, et deaonatratio per c^uaaa aoventaa et aa- 
terlalea," ibid ., c. 

8. "Ponlt aaeundaa causaa ox parte aanalbiliua n^>t«} dicana 
quod philo8or>hi viderunt (v^nea haae naturm, adlicet amai- 
bilea, in notu esse. iderunt etiaa de peraatantc, idaat de 
eo qnod ao-vetur, quod niMl verua dicitur irviuantm autatur. 

uod eaia autatur de albedina In nigrodinea, non eat albua * 
noc rdgrm inquantua autatur. Et idao si nature rana 


n i 

,^o ^aiv 

. .. ^ 






- .3 

MTirt fiiu.^afl la o*bi /3 •nij.t&tir^ ■!.' ' vmn 

- u 7T 609 

Chapter IM 
SMtloo 7 

LbilluB mtnpmv p«mitatur, «t 'ormlno, * idaet quantiM ad 
ly Ita quad nihil in na eat fizuaa, nan eat allquid datfar- 
idlaata tstub dlcare da iT>sa. Kt Ita eaqvitar quod Tarltas 
apiidonls Tal propoaitionia non saquetur Bodm dataraiiuituai 
aasandl In rebua, aad patina Id quod apparat eocBoacanti; ut 
iMo alt aaaa Terus unaaquodk|ua quod eat allcui appaxvra. 

Et quod lata fuarlt eonai ratio, aoc hoc patat. Mas ax 
iMfB auacentlone aiira Of)lniona puUnla-vit oolnlo dictona 
pidloao-'horua 'aunna vol aactr a aa, * Idaat qnaa invanit quid 
aOBHUB val axtraasM hujus aantantlae, quaa dleabat *hern- 
aiisare,* Idaat aaqui opinioDoa doraclitl, val aaquentliMi 
IvacUtuBi aeaondua allam Utmraa* Iriaat qai diaabant tm 
oplnionar Heraelitl aequl qui coauit oania Bovarl, at par 
hoc nihil «aaa varun datandnata* Et hane epinioaea habult 
Gratylus, qui ad ultlsuR ad hanc daoantian davanit, qaod 
opinatuR eat quod ncn oportebat allquid Trrbo dleera, aad 
ad axprlaMXhn quod Tolebat, aovabat aoltm digitua. ?it hoe 
Idao, quia eradabat quod verltaa rei quam Tolabat enuntiara, 
prl!»o tranaibat, quan oratio finiretur. Braviori autan 
apatio dii^itOB aovebat. lata axitea Cratylua reprahandlt 
T«l iDcraiMTlt HaradltuB. Reraclltus enia dixit quod non 
padaat hoao bia intrare in aodaa fluaine, quia antequaa In. 
trat aacundo, aqi» quae ermt flualaia Jam dafluxarat. Ipae 
aataa aadstlna-vit, quod nee senal poteat bono intrare In 
auadaa fluviura, quia ante etiajc quara aaaal Intret, aqua flu> 
aiala daflult et avpenranlt alia, Et ita bob aolm atiaa 
aatt pataat bono bia loqui da re allqua antaquaa dlapoaitio 
aad otiain nee aaoBl," In IV tieta .. 12 iC 6d3-^5hi. 

9. "••• f^ooratea etai non aaapar aadeat, taaan iaaabilitar est 
Tanai qvod quando aadet. In uno loco aanet," S.j ., I, dli, 
1, |d 3. 

10. "Qoaa (verltaa intallactua) quldea coraiatit in eonfomitata 
talallactua et rai. Qua quldaa aubtraeta, a tatur varitaa 
ai|rfjBioBia« et par conaaqaana varitaa propoaitionia. Sic igl- 
tor haae propoaltlo: .Socrataa aedet, eo eodmita vera eat et 
▼arltata rei, inqu^inttai oat quaadaa tox signifieatlva} at 
varitata algniricationls inquaatua aignifieat oplnionea 
varaa. Socrate rero surgente, rsaanet prima Veritas, sad 
antator aoeunda," S.T., I, 16, 8, a^ 1. 

11. IB IV Mata., 13 £C 688J1 In VIII nij.» ^ Uj. 

12. Lji IV }Xata., 13 [C 689J. 

13. la IV Mata., 13 Ic 690i. 

^ IT ^.sf J^« 

b* ' • 

■•s 'CJ 


- ■ ■ * « 



a. ■.▼ 

-f. -1 



^*l'- 4 (Ml 











,i .XI 

9oU9t P«ri IT 610 
ChipfUr TIT 
■iMilon ? 

lii. "Secundai:, ratlonea j>onit, quao tails ©et. — „ ----nii 

tatur, ii*b«t .Ian aliquld de t«r»lno ad qmm pw*mtItuJ^'^- 
q«od «utatur, dun, .utatur, partln «t In^rl^iJ^^L^; 
partln ^n tor.'^jio a quo, ut probatur In Mxto Physleoro.! 

2I2ftS^ ^Jt'Tii f! r J*^ ^'^^^ inf Ulgl, qu2d in ao quod 
J»r td»l .liquid sjus lne»9«t aub>eto mdWll. Et eltis a«od 

"orJ^7t:;^ ""^ 2i:"'"°~"- '*^^ ««««' .?r.riiiq;if ' 

Mt, jam nga^t owlno in corruptua ease, et non in corruaoi 
Similiter aute» si allquid ^^.ratur, a^ortc^^uL siT^'' 

^^rnZ^sf r"**"^!,'* '^"' • ^"^ mrmr»tir. Hoc «,!«, 
^a^JT^ ^f P''^*^*" In lnfimt«, quia ut T«-ohatw 

•J* qui dirunt, quod de eo quod nowtur nihil potest Tare 

2llrX'^^il'*^^**J^'?*^ •* f«ratur7^ allquid 
rt^tjrnlno ad qi».i ti» quia in o«nl generatlone et »otii 
Wtct Donere allquid In^enltu. et ivn^dbiU px narte inte 

mi!jjr"'*'' 15 IV «eta.. 13 (c 686j,%friS*j?*pS!:- 

^^' e'rtrS;;«2i;rlr^«*"''^"" mippomt aUquid i««>Mle, «« 
Mal«mobllis, et cun transautatur foma substantlalls. re- 
JJT^ ri^!/""**^^*"- -^"^ •<^1" "utabiliu. s«t li^ 

»^ ^f lii^J'' *"-! "^^ "^^^ ^"*^° ««**«*. in w«o loco 
J!^*i fr!!!Jr ^** "*^^ rrohlbet de rebu^ ^oblliba. 
^-oM^ ertentiaa h.b«re," b.T., i, 8a, 1, ad 3, "Seeund*. 

sario est ens; quia emie quod penmtatur, ex aliquo in allnd 

P««tatur. bnde non oportet dleere quod quljquld est iTre 
pw«i taU, a utetur, sBd quod allquid ,lt minerS; et ita noT 
omAm sovmita-," In TV Meta., 17 (r ?1j7j, * 

^^* 'iZ'^T ^"^ y» ^ing»"tla duoliriter nossunt eonsiderarl. 
^SitT^^iJ^ r ^*?* c«"*1ne«»"tla sunt. Alio modo, se- 
«w»UB quod In eis allquid necessitatis In^^turt nihil 
«^ eat «leo rortinsens, quin in ,e «11ot:ld neoeisSioi ha- 
dH ;«^w irfltn,. q'jod est Soeraton curiwe, in sa qnl- 

der continpens est, sed habitudo cnmm ad iwtw'est nlc2s- 
jarla, ne«iMari«enla est SocrmUm «o^h, si curriJT!! 

contlnwi. eat qnod pot*.at esse et non ••••, pot«,tin«ta. 


« * 



ii.Wv.. ./J I. 



slop ( ''? 

: ?art TT 611 
< naptfT TTI 

p«rtlmt art ««t«rlan. nmmBmttam mUa e«n>«»qui tur r >tl omn 
f Wit , qulm «« quae conaiv'uuntur ad famaa^ ox naaaasltat* 
i," S.T., T, 86, 1, e. 

17. "Umt licet aateria qnantaB eat de »• indetandnate mm habeat 
•d iimltaa faniaa, taMM per foraaa deteradnatur ad am 50- 
duM eaaettdi ." In IV Meta ., 1? i^ 6fl2J. 

18. Thia eoBPlete analysis la carried on, of course, t^^rcwghout 
the Physics of Aristotle and the correepondinf Thoalatlc 

19. S.T., T, 86, 3, c. 

20. Tbld. Cf.j "(oncludit idOR de necessarlls, quod concluserat 
d5~seapltemis ; quia etiaa in ipais rebus eorrurtlbHibwe 
sunt quaedaa aecessarla, ut hominea esse anl-al, oeaae UfUm 
ease wm^m aw ptftet" IS ^'^ MwU ., 9 LC l873j; "Qaartw 
■odua ponit IM "aapUus quod.'- ricit quod neceeaarlva 
etifla dlclBus sic mm habere, quod non contlnRlt allte r ee 
habere: et hoc est neoeaaarlua absolute. Prlna antea neees- 
sarla sunt secunduB quid, r^iffert «ate« neeeseariwa atoao- 
lute ab alils naeessorilsi quia naceaaitaa abeeluta e«Mpetit 
rel aeeunduB id quod eat IntlwjuB et pnaAmm elj slire sit 
foraa, sive rnteria, al^s ipsa rel esaentiaj sicut dlelane 
«Mlaal neeease esse corniptibile, quia hoc conseoultur ejus 
aaterian laquantun ex cowkrariis coaponltur, 1 ielitus etlaa 
animal necessario esse senslMle, quia consequltar ejus for- 
iflBt et aniaal neeesaario eeae subetaDtiaa anisaatw eensi- 
bUMn, quia est ejw esseBtl*," In V Ifeta .. 6 IC 832-«33i. 

21. "Sic autem non est necessariioi Socratew sedere. Unde non 
eat neeeasarina abeolute, eed potest diei neeessariai ex 
swjpositlonej suopoeito enia ouod sedeat, neeesse est eoa 
seders d«a ssdet," S.T., 1, IP, 3, c. This necessity is 
really the saae as that generalised in the principle of con- 
tradict! <»: "Melt ergo prtno, quasi ex praeoissis conclu- 
dMB, quad si praediets svnt inecnrsnientla, ut ssllicet 
oania ex neeassltata svsniant, oportet dieere ita se habere 
circa rr-e, scilicet quod oane nuori est, nscesss est ssss 
qnaado eat, et onaas quod non est naeeaae est wm esse quaado 
aaa est. Et haee neeessitas fundator suosr hoc princirluat 
iapossiblle est siaul ssss et noa esss. SI eria all quid est 
lapossiblle, duB est, Ulud siaul noa ssss, ergo neceace est 
tunc illud esse. Haa iBpoasibile noa esse Idea slRnl float 
el quod est naeesss esss, ut In seeundo dicetur. Kt slalll- 
tsr, si aUquid aon est, li^weslbile est illud slaol ssset 
erfo nsesBse est noa esse, quae etlaa idea alfnif leant. Et 
Ideo aanifeste verua est, quod oane quod sst,neeesae est 

S^ n in.%^ in4M»^ 

- - - • ■ rf 

viu^MOki* ^u.iiaXieiiX<v.> viW A>a» yUvtMisi'i^ 1« 

; .«! 

.0 , i .W 

*T .OS 


■■','f\Z * fKAn.iorii'^ " .IS 

in»dfirf m- 


i'Se &.. 2« £i&Up :)U£C IX-Up «J<3 IBD'T X 

^V% TI ')12 

ChapiMr III 

SMilOQ 2 

quando e«t| nt obm quod non est, necM** est noa^ 
pro lllo t«^>ore qiiando non vfltt et ha«c act BBC««alta0 MB 
ab«Qlutay a«d ex a up p— itio— » Unda non poteat aiMpllcitar 
at abaelute did quod aaae nuod eat rma9»S9 aat aaaa, at 
OMia quod non eat naaaaaa aat non eaaai quia non idea sig- 
Qlfleaatf quad aans eaa qaaodo aat ait az naeeaaitataf at 
quod onna ana alaplleiter sit ex necaaaitatai naa ^lr^a1 
aignlfieat naaaaaitataa ax aupi^oaitlona aecuadoa autaa ne- 
oawltataa abaolutvK. Bt quod dictaa aat da aaaa« intalli- 
faadna aat alallltar de non eaaat quia alivd aat 8ln:>licl> 
tar ax necessitate non essa, et allud est ax naceasltate 
non n8s« quando non eat," In I Perlh . , 15. 

22. S.T., T, 8U, 1, ad 3. 

23. IMd.; of. S.T., I, 103, 1, ad ^f «d 3. 

2ii. "Dleandua quod, slcut supra dletua est, quoddaa neeaasarium 
aat quod habet cauaaa auaa naeaaaitatia. Dnda dob rapufput 
aaeaaaario nee incorruntlMIi, auod oasa elus depandaat ato 
alio aleut a causa. For hoc ergo quod dicitur quod owiia 
dacidarent in nlhilua nisi continerentur a r>eo at etiaa 
angall, non datur Intelllfl quod in anftelis ait allquod cor- 
raprtlonia prinelplua; aed ouod ease angaXi dapandaat a Tao 
sieut a oauaa. Non autea dicitur aliquid esse eorruptibilc, 
par hoc quod 1>aua poaalt illud In noa aaaa radigare, sub- 
traheado auaa conaarvatioaaa; scd par hoe quod in aa^pao 
aliquod prlncipiua eorrupticoie babat, val eootrarietataa, 
Tel aaltea potontiaa aatariaa," ^.T., I| So, 5, ad 3. (f. 
5,T., I, 103, 1, ad 3| ra riub. ap7« 7 i? ij3j; o.i,, I, Ui, 
l,~Bd 2. 

25. "Saeondo, (Aristotalea ostandit) quod Judiciun aenaua 
aat da aansibilibus propriis, sed deeipitur circa sensibilia 
oeKMiBia, mafia autaa eirea aanalbilia per aecidena," Da S£. 
Craat . il7j. 

26. "Si antaa isaneuaj eoaparatur ad intallactua aaeuadua quod 
eat rapraaoantatlvaa altariua rei, eua ouandoqua repraaaan- 
tet ai aliter ran quan alt, aecundua hoc seoaoa falaaa dici- 
tur, in quantun natua aat tacere falsaa exiatiaationaa ia 
Intellectu, ffuaaTla non aaeaaaario faeiat, aicut at da rebus 
dietua estt quia intalleetoa sicut iudicat de robaa, ita at 
da hla quae a aensiboa offaraatur," Da Var . , 1, 11, e. 

27. "Diaandna quod senaon afficl pnt ipaua alua aantira. Inda 
par hoe quo<i senaiia ita nuntlant sieut afficiaatur, aaquitur 
qaod non doeipiaaur in ludicio quo iudlcaaua aea aantire 
aliquid," d.T., 1,17, 2, ad 1} ef. be Var., 1, 11, £• 

,u ,. 

,i«0 ecm c 

.r b£ .T. 



' .as 







•:i *^ i-v *-*2£i ^ • 3 ;a *£ ^:a .ij^vt «»i»^ «* 

IS P*rt n 13 
ehapt«r ni 
BMtion 2 

28. "Miillltado autan all cuius rmi aat in Benau trlplleitar* 

Mm aorio, nrlao at par sa sieut In yIsu eat aladlitudo colo- 
raa at aliorai proprlana aaaalblllun .•• at oirea propria 
sanslMlla sanaua nan habat falsaa coirnltlonaB, nlal par ac- 
•Iteiw, at in panelorlbtMy ex ae •eilleat quod proptar la- 
dl«p«iitlonaa o-ganl aoB coaveaiaaikar raelpdt fanuai aaaai- 
bilaiD ... et Inda <*at c^ood rroptar oaraqytianaB linfuaa 
Inflimis dtilela anara aaaa vldantur," ".'".. I, 17, 2, e* 
rf. n© ver., 1, 11| In IT r-o An., Hi .j In IJJ ^ An., 

6 I'-ISOTF In TV <ata ., li4Tc~592^98ij ^.T., 17 1?, 3, £.; 
85, 6, c. ~ ~ 

?9. Is ^' Ii£ ^'t 13 LP 386j. 

30. "SlrrllitTido aula* olienius rol oat in aanau triplieitar. . . . 
Kt alio nodo vmr »9, «ad non rrino, aicut in vlsu eat aiai> 
litttdo flniraa ▼«! MagniUidlnia at al^orai cc— innJua saaai- 
Mllam (ymlTiin.... Da aaaaiblllbas vara caaauaibaB at par 
accldana ootaat eaam falam lodiciun atian in aansu recta 
diaooaito," S.T., I, 17, 2, c. Cf. In II ^ An., 13 i^' 386j5 
In TTT T>e An.,~l [P 577j! 6 T^ >63j| Pe Ver., 1, U, c.| In 
IV Hata ., lH CC 702J. 

31. "Slallltudo autara allcuiva rel est in sanau trlollciter,.,, 
Tartlo )i»edo, nac prlao nae ror sa, sad per accldeoa; aicut 
in Tiau est alailitudo hoainis, non Inqaaatua est hoao, sad 
inqxian'biB huic colorAto accidlt esse boainaa*... Da sansi- 
billboa irero coaaoaibuB at per accidens potaat eaaa falsua 
iudialua atiaa in aensa recte dispoaitr)} quia sensiia aoa dl- 
raeta refartnr ad Ilia, sad pw aeeidens, vel ex coaaequaati, 
Inquantua refertur ao alia," S.l,, T, 17, 2, c. Cf, Da Ver ., 
1, 11, e.| In IT ne An., 13 tP 387-388jj In III I* An., F" 
tP 662 J 2]!^^ Mota., Ih Ic 701 j. 

32. For the nature of phantasla , cf. In III ^Tm An., ^ and 6. 
"Sad eirea apfrahaasionc'.t seasus sdandua eat, qiuxl est 
qaaadan vis apprehanslTa, quae apprahandit apeciaa aansibi- 
lea sansiblll re praaaaate, sieut sensus proprlus} quaadaa 
Tero at)r«^handit aaa ra abaanta, slcut iaajjjLnatioi at idao 
m mt moB setmer appre bandit rea ut est, nisi sit iapadi<«sntia 
la orgaao, Tel In aadio} aed iaaginatio apprahandit ut plu- 
rlaoa raa ut nan eat, qaia a ppra h andit aaa at prasaantaa, 
em sit aljsans; et ideo dicit PhJloeorbus in IV Matapb*, 
qaod sensus non est daalBus falaitatis, sad phantasia," Te 
l^r. , 1, 11, £. "Motus auten ohantaslae '-jui eat f actus a^ 
actu sansus, dlffsrt ab Istls tribus sensibus, id est acti- 
bus seneus, slcut effectus rllffert a causa, ^t propter boc 
etiaa quia eff actus est debillor causa, et quanto aagis ali« 
quid nlonratur a priao ai^ente, tanto •nlnus reclpit de rlrtu- 
te et sinllitadlne e^8| Ideo in pbaataala faollius adbuc 

* .8s 




....fa^ln^rnhrJ nuzaa ai turn f«n ei/ " .Of 




't fm t^ m * .It 




'♦I' ." 1 .$C 

^»i> > 




■oUbi Part TT 6lli 
ChapUr TI? 
baotion 2 

qamm In ••nsu potest lneld«r« falaltaa, quae conaiatlt in 
rilaaliBllltudlne sensua ad aanalbila. Tuae enin eat falstia 
aenaua quando aliter raeipltar foriM aanaibllis In eenau, 
quail alt In aenaiblli. Et dlco aliter secunduo apeclem, 
non seeuiKluM aatarlaai puta si sapor dtilcis rcclpiator In 
lingua aecvndua aaarltodineas seeundun vero aatarian aasnar 
aliter reel pit aenaua, quan hal>oat aensibile. Otonia igjtir 
■otua phantaaiae, qui fit a aotu proprioruai smwibilioi, 
eat Terua, ut in plurlbus, Et hoe dlco quantun ad praeaan* 
tlaa aenalbllia, quando notus phantaaiae eat aiimil cvb aotu 
■anaiM/' In Til Ijo An., 6 [P 66iij. Cf. S.T., I, 17, 2, ad 
2% IB IV MaU .. IS Tc 69?-603j. " ~ — ' 

33* "Haee autea ratio nm aolna darieit in hoc, quod ponit aen- 
aua et intelleotUB idea, aed et In hoc quod ronit JiKiiciuB 
aaaaoa nunquaa falli de senalblllbus. Fallitur snla de aen- 
slbilibua cooaunlbuB et per aecidena, licet non de aenaibl- 
libua proprlla, nlai forte ex Indlspoaltlone organi. Rec 
oportet, qxianiTla aenaua alteretur a sonalbilibus, quod judl- 
ciua aenaua alt Tenia ex conditlooibua rei senaibllia. Ron 
enlR oportet quod actio agentia reciplatur in patlente se- 
ouadnoB noduBt agentls, sod secundua modua patientla et reci- 
ptSBtia. Lt inde eat quod aaaaua noo eat quandoque dlaoo- 
•Itna ad reclpiendun taarmBm aenaibllla aeexindua quod est in 
Ipso senalbili; quare aliter aliquando Judlcat quaa ral 
Veritas ae habeat," In IV Meta .. 12 lC 673 J. 

3it. "DlecBdua quod circa Istaa quaaatlwiea triplex fult philoso-i 
phona oninlo. Democritus eaim ooauit quod 'nulla eat alia 
eauaa cuiualibet nostrae eoimitionia, nlal cub ab his corpo- 
rlbus quae cofrltanus, -venlunt atque intrant inairlnes in 
aaiaaa nostras,' ut Auguatinua dielt in epistola aaa '^d 
Dioae. hi. Aristotelea otlaei dlelt in libro T)e boono, quod 
Daaocritua poauit cognitlooem fieri 'per Idola et defluzi- 
onea.' Kt huius poaitlonla ratio fuit, quia tarn ipse Dano- 
critus quaa alii antlqui liaturalaa non p<Hi(>bant InteUeetoi 
diffarra a aensu, ut Ariatotelfca dicit in libro I« An. ht 
idao quia aenaua iaautatur a eenalbiliy arbitrabaatur oanea 
nastraa cognitionaH fieri per aolaa iHMtatiooea a aenaibi- 
llbua. Quaa quidaa iaautatiooan DeMocz^tua asserebat fieri 
per iteaglnuB dafluxlonea. 

Plato Tero e contrario poauit inteUeeUm diffarre a 
sensu; et intellaotun quidaa eaae virtutos iasaterialaa or- 
gano corooreo noo utanten in auo actu," ^•^•t I, (ili, 6, e. 

35. 3.T. 152 J. 


■ 1 


«t< ./ OQ^ ni 1ft f>»ft « 


-1? » 

-* ,. . 


^ .*- ^. -I 

MMOB V ^ ^ 

-jfecfiaoM a • ^!i 

ft e Au^aftllKtoi 8bam»r oi 

.t.a .5c 

RoUsT ':*mr% TT 61$ 
Chaptor TV 
Section 1 


1. In Sent . t?OJ. 

2. In I>S Trtn . ihi, 
1. Djr Ver . tl7j. 

li. In "»ta . ll?J. 

5. s.T. [5? J. 

6. Ibid . 

7. ]> ^. ^roat . tl7j. 

8. De Sub. Sen . [Ij. 

9. Ibid . 

Section 1 

1. In T De An., U» 

2. £.j[. IB Mcta . 112 J. 

3. "Hoc eala Mil wis omnltta e e— u nitw Indltwa fult quod *slT»lle 
slDlll cognoBcltur, "• S.T., I, QU, ?, c.| 'Et quia dlxerat, 
q«od OMMS conrenltmt Tn''hoc, quod dicunt anlfMoa comptful ex 
prlnclpila, quia ooortet cof?noerl simile siallit praet«r 
unuo, scilicet Anaxafjoraar: Trteo cub dldt: 'Anaxafcraa asten 
solus' ostentilt quail tor dlffert ab elai dlcens quod Anaxa- 
goraa solua dixit Intellectua eaae Ispasslbllaai, nac habere 
allquld coaaruaa alicui, idoet null! eonwi quae cornea elt 
elwUen. S»d quail ter co(?noaclt Intelloctua, neque Anaxa- 
goras dixit, neque eat aanlfaaUai ex hla quae dicta aunt," 
In T Oe An., < IP 66] j "... dlcena quod Plato etlaa facit 
anlBan ex prlnclolls constltuta* ease.... Ft ratio hujua 
erat, alcut Hlctua est, 8i«:lle copnoeeltur sitaill...," In 

De An. t5j. cf. In T !> An., I [P U5j| ""- i^ 59j| iP 65j; 
TH Tf Tie An., 10 IT I'^Jj I' T52JJ l" l57i| In 717 De An., 
7"L^ <377-J573j; In TIT Ifeta ., 11 [r b76j; S.T., T, 50, 2, ad 
2; 8^, ?, c.i T]e Un. TnCell ., 1 U IQjj T^ Sg. Great ., 8, 
ad lli. 

^0 T 

T *■ 

i n I «i I 

1 .8 

.1 .s 






«8 , 


St "art n 616 



tt« "Olclt ergo crlMo, quod oanafl quleuaqu* vencrunt in eoi^ni- 
tloBMi anlaae quanttia «d coigao9emrm et ■•ntire, Idaat nm* 
cognltlonaai •t asnaiia. In h«e eo«vral«bant, qal« dlesbiuit 
aalMM 8S8« ax prlneipiisi quae quid** prlnelpla alll 
'faelebant,* idast ponabant, asaa plura^ alii vero amn< 
taatwB. Ad DonaadHi antaa ardaaa caaa ax Drlneipiia een- 
stitatan Bovabantur, quia Ipal antiqui phlloaophi quani ab 
Ipaa irvrltata coacti, aonnlabaiit qvodaroMclo wrltataai. 
Varltas aatam aat, quod eognitlo fit par alnHltudiaaa rai 
co^mitaa in coKnoecanta: oportpt anjn quod ros cognlta ali- 
quo aodo ait in cogaoaoanta. Aatl^n>i '^'W^o pblloaophi arbi- 
trati s'Jtit, quod oportet aiallitudinsn rai eofoiitaa aasa in 
eognoacante aacundun aaaa naturale* hoc aat seeuadua Idaa 
aasa quod habat In saipaat dleobant Mda qaod Oj^artabat ai- 
nila aiaili cognoael; uade ai aniaa o<HP>o*«at oaaia, opor- 
tet, quod habaat aiaHitudinatn ondua in sa aeeundaa aaaa 
naturale, aicut ipai pooabaat. Haadanwt ania diatinguaia 
illua Rodu-n, quo rea est in Intellectu, aau in ooulo, val 
iaaginatlona, at quo ree aat In aaipaa: uada quia iUa, 
q\iae aunt da esaentia rai, aunt ;)rincipia illiua rai, at 
qui eoffnoacit principia hujuaraodi cognoaclt ipaara ra«, ^xy- 
Ruerunt quod ex quo aniaa cognoscit onnia, esset ex princi- 
oiia rertm. St hoc arat eaaibua eoanuBe," In I Pa An., U 
LP I»3i. 

^. See note 15 below. 

6. AristoUe, £• An., T tliOlib ^-27 J. 

7- I5 I 5£ A2«» ^ IP Uli-li^ii 3.T., T, 8U, 2, c. 

8. la T He An.» U IH li5j» ^.T.* T, 8U, 2, c. 

9. 3.T., I, 8h, 2, e. 

10. In Da An. i5i. Tao ottaar davaloninanta (ana involving t^te 
Theory of Tdaaa) appaara in thia context (5-7) both ahoning 
tlMt Plato radncad the aoul to ouaerical elementa. In thaaa, 
hoaever, the aiaila-aiaili principia ia not explicitly ap- 
pealed to. 

11. 3.T. l52j; I, aii, 2, c. 

12. In MetA . il2j. 

13. 3.T. [53j. 

lii. "E contrarlo ta.'^n Platonici poaaanmt. ^lato aaia, quia 
riarapaxit intallactualea aniaaai laaaitarialMi aaaa et iwia- 
tarialitar eognoacara, poauit foraas rarua cogaitama 
tarialiter subaistera," S.T. 15'^ j; of. ^.T, i52j. 

n "t 


dB km: '% 



_.,: ,.. ., a 

.■ .... ,., , .... ■■ fl 

Xofrsf em) c 

aa o^aXST •imrtairax: 













II rtrt IT 617 
Chaptur IV 
Lon 1 

15. («) In knowledK* in gmmrmlt jj|» V«r., 10, U, c.| 7, c,| 

C.U., I, 72; In II nj An.. iTTp 377 j I Tn V tfeta ., 19 
Tc^loUSji In VI il»ta .."ir [f 1?3Uji In i* i?., 1, 11; 

6, $1 7, 3| b.'i.TT^ 16, 1, C.I 2, C.J 17, 2, c.f 3, £.; 
27, U, c; 7^,""2» "^ ^f In !:• I* Caucla , 8, 10, 

(b) In divine k»ofvl«ds«t Qwodlib ., 12, 8, U, c.i ^.T., I, 
11*, 11, C.I 15, 1, c; 57, 2, c. 

(e) In «ng«iTe knowlodjsex In II ^Tt ., 3, 3, sol.; Quodlib ., 

7, 1, 3, C.I i^.T., I, 55, 2, C.J ad 2} ad 3j 57, 2, c . ; 
iri ?j De Su. (Troat . , 8, ad lii. 

(d) In the afparated soul's knoidL«d««t S.T., I, 12, 9, c.j 

89, U, e. 
(•) In tho Beatific ▼ielont In IV Sent., Ii9, ?, 1, ad 16, 

(f) In human intellectual cognition: In ITI bent ., 27, 1, 
h, Bol.i De Ver., 10, h, 9^ Ij C.r., t, 72; In II l;e 
An.71? L^ 37TIj S.T., T, lii, 12, C.I 17, 3, C.I 76, 2, 
3 U| 85, 1, «li 3| ad U| 85, 2, ad 1| 8, ^ 3j 10$, 3, 
ad 2. 

(g) 7n huMn sense coiinitlon: CO., I, 72| In II IJe An., 1? 
IP 377JJ S.T., T, 17, 2, cTr3, c.j 85, 1, ad 3; 2, "d 

16. "DleanduBi ouod non «»at neeassariua quod slollitndo rel cog- 
nitae sit actu in natura coimoeeentiss sed si aliquld sit 
o«od priua est eofrnoseens in potentla et rostea in actu, 
(jportet qxiod sirailitudo eoRniti non sit actu in natura cog- 
noacentis, sed in potentla tantnni sicut color non est actu 
in iMDllla, sed in ootentia tantan. Unde non oportet quod 
in natura anlmae sit sinUltudo rvnm corporearu* in actuj 
sed quod sit in potentia ad hulusaodi siailitodines. >«d 
quia antlqui Maturales noaeiobant distinguere inter actt» 
et poteatiaa, poaebant anLaaa ease corpus, ad hoe quad cok- 
aoaoeret omia corpora, at quod asset coapoeita ex firinci- 
piia amlym corporua," S.T,, I, 75, 1, ad 2. Cf. In lU De 
\n., 13 l78e-789jj S.T.7 I, 6ii, 2, ad 2j be to. Intell .. 1 
LK 19 J ; De 6r. rreat ., 8, ad ll. Kor the Aristotelian 
crltlcisS; see dTad., II ,T lUl6b 32 - U.7a 21 J j HI, 8 
lU31b 20 - !i32a"Ii. 

17. "Ad ponendupa autem aniaaa esse ox prlnclpiis conatitutaxa 
■ovebantur, quia ipsl antiqui philoeophi quasi ab ipaa Terl- 
tate coactl, somdabant qnodasHOdo vnrltat«B. Veritas autaa 
est, quod cognltio fit per siailitudinea rei cognltae in 
cognoscente: oportet onia quod res cognita aliquo aodo sit 
la eegnoeeante. Antlqui ^ro phllosoJAi arbitrati sunt, 
quod oportet similitudinea rel cognltae esse in cognoscente 
seevnduB esse naturals, boo eat seeondto) idea ease quod ha- 
bet In seineat dierbant enia quod oportebat aiaile sialli 
oagnoaci; unde si anina eognoacat oaaia, oportet, quod 

T-te II ^w" '^H**^ 

.• 'IJ J. ■ -i-r^ 

S-2 tc 


«>. (•'•*- • »f7i-'i-**•'^^^ t -1 

■^ ^. i' ' 

,ii . 

' .--'r - <r 

■) .H 

-SO-- - -^- ^ -^ 3 

(.'<>3« .ten firv« tol^i .^trn^a t 


ju_ ... ... t 

r. I) 

-:«0- -. .„ > 


«N.> « i 


RotMt ParX 11 6lS 
Chapter IT 
SveUcn 1; 2 

sixilltudlncr oaniua in so s«cunda<a •■•• nsturaXc, sleui 
ipei pan«bant. Hsscierunt eBia dlaUnguare lUua nodiui, 
quo rea est In intolloetu, seu ' n oculo, v»l inai^natlone, 
•t qao r«8 aat in Baipaat unda quia Ilia, quao mint da 
eaaentia rei, aunt prlziclpia illiua rel, at qui coRBoaclt 
prlBclpla bu^usBOdl eognoaeit Ipaan ram, poauaront quod ex 
quo anima cornoeeit omia, eaaet ex nrinclpiia rarua," In 
I na jVB., k i? ii3i. ^f. IB TIT Pe An., 2 [P 5B9-590j| Q.U. 
Da An., 18, ad 6| 3.T., I, 85, 8, ^3; B8, 1, ad 2. 

18. "Halinquitur argo quod oportai aaterlalia eognita in cog- 
noaeanta exiataro non aaiarialitar aad aai^^a iBoaterlalitar. 
£t huiua ratio eat, quia oetua cognitionia aa axtaodit ad 
•• qpaa aimt axtra cof^oacanten. Cof^noacinua anis etiaa aa 
qtiae artra r.oe aunt," S.T. , T, 81i, ?, c. 

19. In VII «ata .. 8 ic lU^Ji In IT le An., 1? [P 376j; In III 
5 An.,TT? ?89i| S.T., T, 18, IT^ ari 2j 56, ?, c.| ^ 3; 
Q.O. ra ^., 18, »d 6j ^ Sp. Creat ., 1, ad 11. ~ 

20. S.T., I, 81, ?, c. 

21. Ibid . 

22. *)ioa antee aniaa aat ipaaa raa aicut ill! [ac. antiquij 
poauarunt, quia lapis non aat in aniaa, sad apacies lapi- 
dia," In III Da An., 13 i? 7b9j| cf. S.T,, I, 76, 2, ad it} 
Aristotla, !]•££., HI, 6 tl31b 29j. "* 

23. In Beta. [12 Ji S.T. £52 J. 

i.^ HI 

21. 3.T., T, 8Ii, 2, c; cf. S.?., T, ih, 1, c.; 75, 5, c.| 76, 
I,~ad 2; ad 3; 7?, 3, ad"'27 a<i 5; £."• 13. ^•» ^» *^ 5j 3, 
ad 7; ad HJ ad 17; lii, c. r77 also The raworlcing o? an 
XacivtDiian arguaant for the iBnortallty of tha saol in In 
I Sent ., 19, 5, 3, ad 3. 

25. S.T. L52J. 


1. In Meta. [12J. 

2. Ibid . 

3. In laag .. art.soc., I, 10 [CSKL 1*8, l63.1ii-22j, Cf, "ftinla 
Intallaetua inialli^na rag alitar quan ail, eat falaus," 

%lSb IX jHe^ 

S Ji H'JiOlJJ. 


. » ...>.-.., ^._ .•>('.>».>< 

Ijii^Xo^i >i:.!i;;j kjitil: 













* .J .It 

t - 


I Pwt II 619 

ChapUr TV 

iMtiOD 2 

S.T., I, 13, 12, arg. 3j »l»o In T .^ent . , K', 1, 3, »A Ij 
LnTbe Trjn ., 5, 3, M:a. If S.T., I, 85, 1, «££• 1. 

U. In Ismg., 9d.«oc.. I, 10 iCSfcL U8, l67.7^Uj, 

5. Qlo»»— eupT PwptqrlMi tB«itrlM!» 21, ?$,l5-l6j, 

6. IMd. L 2?. 31-32 J. 

7. 'llo«»ulae gurrr Porphyrlun [Heltrige 21, 530.19j. 

8. fctaloglcuB. TT, 20 [» 93.7-<»i. 

9. Ibid . [99.U-6J. 

10. Cjf, !lar«chal, 1a Point d« T)epart de 1* i%taphyslque , <:a^. 1, 
pp. 73-75. 

11. "Cognltlo aut«B cujusllbet eorrnoecentiB oot seeontua aodum 
nibstanilae •jua, »lcut et qxiaolibet operatic est aaeonduB 
aodui operantla," ^ bub. Sa£., 12 [P 72j; "... quod az Ipaa 
operatione intellactua apcaret, qui intelllgit unlyeraaliter 
at par aodiM naeaaaitatla culuadaai} nodue anim aetionia est 
8«eiaidiai nodra foraae agentta." S.T. [52j. Cf. Cuodllb ., 3, 
1, Ij 3, 7, c.| C.r I, 28| liPril, 16; ^.T., I, 12, 11, c.; 
lH, 1, c.| ar, 1, ad 3j li6, 1, ad 9| 5o, I, c.| 76, 2, adl; 
89, 6, C.J £.L-. :« An., 1, c.} In Pa, lav., 2; De juto. Ge2., 
7, 53| Santaler, ler PlatorAaaua In dor rrkanntniale&e aaa 
ML. Thotaaa , pp. SlT^l. 

12. InUata. U2J. 

13. S.T. [52j} InHeU. Il2j. 

lU. R.E.J (•) In f>oti*» laioaladga of things: f .Q.., I, 5Uj -l.T., I, 
li», 1, ad 3; no 3ub . fjan., 12 [P' 72:| (n) In our knowledge 
of OodtTn T ^nt ., UT^, 1, aol.j In '^" aent ., h9, 2, U, 
ad 1| <^J^, tTT^Oj 13 and lli ; (oj in human kncjwledge: 5.T., 
T, 12,~n, C.I Hi, 1, £., iiii, 3, ad 3j 76. 2, ad 3| In Til 
Itota., 9 icItSSii Q.U. Da An., 1, c.; (d) In tha baatlfic 
vGIonf S.T., I, 1?,"?, adl; (eTln tha knowledga of Mm 
aaparata? soul: S.7., T,~^, 6. 


;> il*i L-<m .*fai' 9 

• 1 i,*.' 


' .ox 







SI ,. 


,s ^dT It te •€ ,4ii t.9 a 

It **Brt 17 620 
OMptmr IV 
9Mt1on ^ 


3»cti0W 2 

1. ;uodllb ., 7, 1, 1, c. Th» prlnciplo occurs In mawroua con- 
tarts throurhout the «rlt1n(?8 of St. ThOMS. rf. In T .'.ont ., 
8, 2, 1, Bol.; 10, 1, 2, arg . 2{ 17, 1, 1, contra |"lp TI 
bont., 1, "5, 1, sol.; 3, "J, 3, ad 1; 12, 1, 3, 8ol.| 15, 1, 
27^ 3; 15, 1, ir«i 6; 17, 2,T, ar£. 3; 13, TT^, ad 2, 
30, 1, 2, ad 5| 32, 2, 3, J^.J In TTT Sjmt., lii, 1, 1, sol. 
3i 1$, 2, 17 sol. ?| 20, 1, 1, quaes tlun . 3, ad 3f Tn IV 
Sent., 1. U, qoaeatiiin . 2, arg. Iii 36, 1, i^* aol.j HC, 2, 1, 
sol. 3; U», 2, 1, quaestlun. 3, ad 2j Ui, 2, Tr"»ol« 1| ^f 
IT"!* quaestlun . 3, «1 2; ij^, 3,"^, quaestlun . 3, *rK > lif 
U8, 1, 3, «X- ^1 *'9, 2, 2, sol.; "^O, 1, 2, contra' Tl ^.2« 
^. ^^; a3; IT, 5l| De Vsr., "^9, ad 17| IC, 11, arg. 8j 

b ., 3, 9, 21, c; 7, 1, 1, c; 9, 6, 13, c.; 9, h, 6, 
c; 10, 3, 6, c; In""!! De An., 12 i ' 377j; ?h I^ SS2 r, In 
TTT D£ Aa,, 3 Tp ^Jj Super T £t>. S. ^aull ad Cm;., 13, 3| 
Sapw 2 Bp. «. Paul! ad Cor., 3, l;~S.frr7,"^» 2f "^ 2| 
WTT, C.J 7^, ^T^nC^, c.; 76,'*2, arg. 3; 79, 3, arjr. 
3; ad 37 T^t 6, c.7 8*»f b, c.| Q.U. n© Mi., 2, arg. 19| fa, 
arg . 3 J 10, ad 13 j 19, a^ 10; 20 .""ar^. 7; 21, arg. 13 1 ]]• 
Sp. Great . , 9, arg . I6; In L. De Causls , 20; Ds 5ub. 3sp., 
"si? 3LJ| In IT j« r, t^t 2.7 iT^ 2''lj. "here Is a toxt In 
the De Un. ^ntell . ^L T^ST) In which the principle is stated 
in an inferse smi8«, but the context shows that the text is 
defsctiviit "... et Iterua, cub onris receptlo sit secundim 
Mturan reeepti , Irradlatio speelerua intelligibilluB quae 
sunt in i nteilectu posslbill, non erlt in phantasaatibos , 
quae sunt in nobis, intelliglbiliter sed stmsibilitear et 

O.T., I, 2l», 3, arg. 2 J cf. In I i^ent ., 36, 1, 3, ad 2; 37, 
I,~3, ad 3; C.n.7TT, 23j ii.^, I7^» 5, c.; 2U, 3, arg. 2; 
26, U, ad 2;""^, 1, arg. 37 ^7, 1, c.j 87, I4, £.; 89, 2, c.j 
105, 3, c.| li, £.; Q.U . De An,, 13, arg. 6j 10, arg. ll et 

ad ill ; Tn L. T e ~ ausis , H; re ^jub. ^e^. 12 IP 73^. 

3. S.T., T, 12, I:, c; cf.Tn I 6ent . , 3, 1, 1, soL.j 3, 1, 1, 

ad"'3; 3, 1, 1, ^ ult. contra; 3, 1, 3, arg . 7; 8, 2, 3, sol.; 
15, 1, ?, sol. J 3871[, 5, eol.; -., 10, li, c.; In De 

Hv. KoB., 2, I LP 191j; Super ^. ... :^aai ad Cor., 2, 2f 
37?., T, 12, L, £.; 12, 11, c.; lIT, 1, £.; H, 1,^ 3| Hi, 
3,"*ad 1; 8U, 2, c.; De o£. Great., 6, ad 10. 

li. arllsta. [12 J. 

5. j:,g. "unuaquodque autea eat in aliquo per aodiai ipsius et 
non oer sodua sui, ut natet ex llbro De Causie," In T Sent., 


t s&^x. 

tX ,1 ,si fi o« ,t Vc t?: 


« •.- 




- ' t 

«^ « ^ 

,iii (£ h> (1 ,ui: !•» ,i ("JLl 1*9 (JUL t^x {•£ «u ( 3 

•OX !■ »^ f^jy? 9 "JS SS. *•£ «^ »" t* .J^ *^ 

lot«8i Pari TT 6?l 

Chaptwr IV 

58, 1, 2, abl.; "Dt •tAn dicitur In lltro De Caosia, omm 
qtiod racipltur In allquo wot in eo per aodua paclptuntia," 
"je '^ot ., ?, 3, arg . 1. 

6, "PraatvTM, oana qiiod radpitnr !n allqno, reciritur ^n ©o 
p«r vothn reotrAant^. s , at non rer moAxju aul, ut ex 'i-onyalo 
at eat Mb. T)« rnala haVietor," In "^I Sent., 17, ?, 1, Sfi- 5' 

7, "Ttt atrr^lltar allqua ax ralms non radplt qnori aat av^a 
aaa olal par nodhn aoevidoa qoaii poteat redpara ipauv, van 
par «odo9i aaeundnm quan eat raa i," Liber ">_ rarois , 
9 [B 17li.l'>-17jj ef. 1<? tB 1«?-16,, . : [B 11579110 J. "Ft 
alBilitor ojtnlo aciana non aclt raa EMliorm at raa Infarl- 

et detarloran niai saeandm aedua auaa avbatantlae at 

sul •sem. non aa emt d u a nadua aeetmehia qnam rae aunt,* o£« 
cit., 7 [B 171.7-9]. 

8. "Ilodna qTiidem ral cognltaa non eat noAva comltlonla aad 
■odua cognoaean t la, ut dlelt Boethlus," In I Mont., 38, 1; 
ef. In I vSent . , 3, 1, 1, ad ult. contra il, 2, 3, aol.; 38, 
1, ^80lT~Tt la found In Eoolhius thus: "Orrma anla quod 
cocnoadtar non aaeuniOB atrt. tIb aad aacundun copnoeeantlua 
potlua coKiprehandltur f ac -iltatasi," T^ £05. fMl»» ^» ^Q** 
TV, 16 £F 150.71-73 j. 

9, E.G. Kattheir of Aquaaparta, Qyeatlonea PtaiMitataa Selectae. 
Tuaeationea de Chrtato , 3 LC 5h\i Quaeitlonee da Oratla . 10. 
arg. U i^ ^uTIl OoT»alvufl Hlapanus, Ouaaationaa riapotataa 
et de Quodlibet . QuodUb . 7 IQ iiO^J. 

10, St, Thooaa reada thp reception principle In one text of Aria- 
totle and finda It there attrlbntad to Flato. Saa Source 
under In "feta. L12j* 

11. In TT .cnt .. 18, ?., 2, ad 2; In :v Sent ., Ik, 2, 1, quaaatlon . 
17 ad Tflrx IT Da An., 211 I? 552], 

12. De Ver,, 5, 9, ad 17. 

13. Super ? E£. £« "aull ad 'or., 3, 1. 
111. S.T., T, 6?, 5, c. 

15. re bub , ii22«» 5 ^^ ''^•i* 

16. In n :>ent., 1', 1, 1, aoi.j Cuodllb .. 3. 9, 21, c.i 10, 3, 
Z; c.;"s:^«» I» 79, 3, 3"3| 79, 6, C.I 89, li, C.I In L. Da 
CaiMla, 20. 

IT iivr 


»' a r.vMB -m-f^..-. '. -.- t.-j J ,-, ; a ii. v/ i 

.1 •£_ 

»f: ,01 !•» ,xs , ! ,f ,x 

•a .J ^ -^^ 

r - 

' .T 

N%« ' .8 
















II Part II 6?2 


SMtlMi 3 

tione rf Saint Thof, ip» id2.1li. ' 

18. (a) Pax^dpatlon t«rfliMLL«gxt ' Ipeua ... ease p«rtlcip*- 
tiH ••• non participator ••eHWltai totan InflnitateM 
uai-vonialltatljB maa», sod awaihw attdija natttra* parti- 
clpaatlaf'' In L. De Cauaia , $t "... ohm quod aai par- 
ti elpatua in alique aat in ao par agdun participaRtia," 
In I ^.ant ., 6, ±, 2, contra 2, Cf. In III >Saot ., 27, 
qmaaatiun . Ut ad 1| ad 5» 

(b) Matter ausd fan tamiaoiogyt "... oaii foraa« In natariaa 
raciluntar aacuadun natailaa eapacltatan, " C.O., II, 
92. Cf. In I ent .. 8, ?, 2, art 6| 3.7., I,~7^, 5, ^ 1. 

(c) Action and paaaioa taralaalegjrt "..."aiiDa paaairua ra- 
eioit aetioaaii aflaotla aaeuadun nodtui anna,*' In IV jaitt ., 
Ut, 2, 1, Quaaatian . 3, ad 2, Ct, la II oent . , 20, i, 

1, art . 2t In III ;jent ., 2, 1, 1, sol . 

(d) Forma of por^aetioB mad tfaa parfactiblet ' ... oania 
parfeatio raeipltur in parfactlbill aacandaa nadiMi ojtia,*' 
S.T., I, 62, $, c. 

^^* 1B HS^* ^1^^* ^°^ diveraa ainilitudea to an agent aao 

3.T., T, 7^, 3, ad 3 1 for aiicllltuda in ganeral m— Da Ver ., 
167 i>» ad It. 

20. Da Ver, , 10, ii, ^ I. 

21. S.T., I, ai», 1, c. 

?2. In L. Da Cauaia . 20. 

23. In II Oo iS»» 2ii f 551-551»i. Cf. S.T., I, 8i«, 2, c. 

2U. C.G., III, ii2| 5,;i_„ I, 5, 2, j^ 2. 

25- S.X,, I, 81i, 1, e.| 79, 6, c.j ,uodIib ., 3, 9, a, c; In II 

^"An., 12 [^ 377] . 

26. In Be Trin ., 5, 2, e.| S.T., I, CI*, 1, c. 

27. 3.T., I, 75, 5, c.| eU, 1, c. 

28. S.T,, I, 79, 6, £.; '^uodlJb .. 7, 1, 1, e, 

29. S.T., I, 81i, 1, c. 

30. In lata. Cl2j. 

31. 3.T. tb'2J. 


m _ «__ 

^ •TI 

> .01 



^n ..r . 


•ti b« ti .OX t.*?* ^ .OS 

i .25 

•* **ft »* *v f I t«„«,^ i • 
II nl \,9 ,IS 4^ »f . 


•2, t'^ t^ t^ a. CffXbOgj- ._J J- J, 











■■IMS fmrt 1^ (a:i 

Chapter n 
ttaetloB 3; h 

32. "Dioandoi quod indivlduatio iiit«lli,7«ntia aut apmeimi par 
qusB Intalllglt, noa aasilitdit IntalllKaBtiM aBlY«rMli«i| 
alioqu5ii cur intallaetwa aaparatl aint qu— d— ndbataatiM 
avtelataotae, et par cooaaquanB particularaa, nan poaaant 
OBlTcrsalla Intelligvre. Sad eatarlalitM eornoaoaakla »i 
•paclai par quam cognoacltur, miireraalia cognitlanw lupa- 
dlt. :iieut erdii onnla actio aat aaeunduB moAam fo raa a qua 
•t«w a^itf «t MlafacUo Mmadia ■odan oalarisi ita eoc- 
aitlo aat aaemdaa BodnB apaclal qna caf(noae«i» eognoaclt. 
JtoaifaatuB oat auUnc quod natura coaoiuiia oiatlnguitur at 
snltiplicatur aacundiai prlneipia indiridvantia, quaa mmt 
ax parte aateriaa. i>l argo foraa par quan fit cognitio, 
alt aatarlalis nan abatraeta a eonditloiiibua tvatarlaa, erlt 
alallitudo naturae apaalal aut gaaarlaf aaauadun quod aat 
diatlRcta et aultlplicata par prlnclpla indlTldUcintiai et 
Ita non poterit cocnoacl natura rel in sua coaRualtat** Si 
varo apaeiea alt abatraeta a eonditionlbua aatarlaa indlTl. 
daalla, erit aiallltuda aatoraa abaqua iia quaa Ipaaa <ila> 
tlacMaat at anltiplleant; at ita co^MOoatur univeraala," 
S,T., I, 76, 2, ltd 3| cf. CO., I, 51i. 

Section U 

1. Da ?«r, U7j| of. In l-a Trln. ['-'it In Phy . t7j; In ^*» *n, 
itjUTSji In Meta, 112711" • ."T3lij| ^.T. L e 
b£. r.reat . iljUji7jtl"j J .^.^ - iv . t<r« . l20Ji Jje _ud, r_e2. 

2. Tbw m l>a Var . L17J| !>• i2« ^rcat . lUj and I>e Sub . Sap , llj. 

3. In ifata . il2i} In Da a&. i6j. 

li. Tbua in In l^a Trin. t5j| In i>5 An, ii»8j| In Phy . t7j; ^.T- 
i6Uj. ■" 

5. !^e Chapter IV, oaction 2, Kota 3. 

6. j.i., 1, 13, i^, arg. 3j cf.^ I ;>ent. . , 30, 1, 3, ad 1} 38, 
I,"'2» ad Ij l£ £. »« iiin., >, 3, are . 1 et ad li In II ]ja 
An., 12 IP 379ii ^3., I, 13, 12, arg. 3 et ad 3; 85, 1, 
arg « 1 at ad !• 

7. In a. Da Triiu, 5, 3» ad 1| cf. In I >>ent ., 30, 1, 3, td Ij 
In Tl Ptg,, 3f Abalard, fiioacaa aupar Porphyrlua iBaitrifa 
^jl "BSeUiiua, In leag. , ari.sac., I, 11 t' ...X Ufi, l6U.5-S| 


«i .- 

i»'*^,t*.- w 





.il) .gs* « «tog 2^ *■» iii U—^0 •!.- ^ 

,t •loR «S • 

I .1 


•^ ri «i ti 

>j1t 7^ 

, vt**'-"- ■•'--' --•■.^'X 

Part TT 63k 

Section It 

6. "SI •nla (iicmm eolorvn nor IimmI corporl colorato val 
•••• ••parAtum ab no, writ falaitas In ppinlons ««1 in ora- 

tloTM. 31 roro eonald«r«naa rolorm at raraprlatatwii ajiia, 
nihil con«1derant»s da ixjBO eolarato ... arlt abeqoa falsi- 
tato,..." .T., I, >'$, 1, ad 1. Cf. Boothlus^ In laag ., ad. 
8«J., T, 11 raaltrllCT 25-2n. 

9, "<^u«''^B enl» nan sunt abatraeta aacandtai ^Bam turn aantltmiar; 
quia non aaaTunt ea aaaa axtra natarian aaaalbUav ••• aod 
eafidarant de ala abaqna eonaldaritlona aatarlaa aanaiMlis, 
quod abaqua nandaclo flari notMt,..." Tn T7 ^., 3 15 j. 

10. "It quia wrltaa Intellactus oat ex hoc, quod eonfor^atur 
ircljy natet quod aaaaadua hanc aerundaM oporatlonaa Intal- 
laotua non po^t iwra abatrahsra, quod aaeandua ran eon- 
luactisi aat, quia In abatamhando slgnlflearatur es^ aepa* 
ratlo(.na«j aaeuwtan Ipaoa aaaa ral, sleut el abatraho honiaKi 
ab albadlna dlcando 'haoa non aat albua,* alenlflco easa aapa- 
ratlonaa In rel. Unda al aaauadwi raa homo at albedo non 
alnt soDarata, erlt Intellectua fnlsus," In B, T« Trln ., ?, 
3, c. See alao In I S«nt., 19, U, 1, ad T? Tn TT^ ^ent ., 2, 
2, aol . 1. 

U. "Cub anln varitaa Intallectua sit adaequatlo intallactua et 
ral, aaaanduB quod jntallertua dldt oaaa quod eat tbI non 
aaaa quod non eat, ad lllud In Intallectu Tarltaa martinet 
qnod IntcllaetuB dldt, non ad onarat^.ooaa qua lllud dlclt. 
loa anlB ad Tarltaton Intollcctua tntlgltur ut Ipsam Intalli- 
gara ral aaquatur, cun rea Interdun sit aaterlalla, Intalll- 
gare Tmro lamateriale: sad lllud quod Intallactaa lntelll> 
findo dlclt et eoiraoaelt, oportot eaaa ral asquatus, ut ad- 
licet Ita alt In re alcut Intalleetua dldt," £.2-» I» 59. 
8t. Thonaa xiaea the aaae orinclrle and natbod to dlstlnf^leh 
the eosplex aU^cture of t!ia judKaaat fron that of the raal 
(not logical) Btibjectt "Dlcandxai quod eln^llx^ido rol redpl- 
tor In intallectu saewidua aoduB intellactus, et non saeuiKhia 
■adoa ral. Unde coanoaltlnnl et dlvlsionl intalloctus re« 
spondat ouldor* allquld ex parte rel; t a m a n bob aodaa aodo aa 
habat In re alcut In Intallectu. Intellaotua anla buaanl 
proprlui oblaeUn aat qniddltaa ral aaterlalls, quae sub 
aanau at imf^natlona eadlt. InreBltur aataa duplex coapo- 
altlo In re naterlall. Prlaa quldaq foraaa ad ■aterlaaf et 
hulc raapondat roinwsltlo intallectua qua totoa urdveraale 
de sua rarta paradlcaturi naa itamm aaatftor a aatarla eoa- 
■unl, differentia iraro covnlatlira apaalal a foraa, partieu- 
lara Tero a rratarla IndlTlduall. Sacanda Tere ccopoaltio 
aat accidentia ad auM.aetuB| et bnlc eoopcaltlonl raapondat 
eevDoaltlo Intellaetua aeeundTS quan praodleatnr aeddana da 
sublecto, ut cua dlcltor, hoaM eat albos. — Taaan dlffert 
ce^Msaltlo Intellaetua a aiiioaltiaaa ralf naa ea ouaa coapo- 

^ IT <H!9« 

^ : r. ^ i > :,= 




9n «Kf 

.X ,i; , 





•*■ •4**'* »S 



•l9« iu «» 

*• «t 

.1 bOR 

Mi^ * 



cten or 

9b . 




II Part TT 6r$ 
CkapiUr n 

nujxtiir In re, aiint <liv»ra«| eonnoeltlo aut«a )nt«ll«etua est 
aigMai Idantltatls eorm vftam ecMpoBunivr. Hon crIb lirtel- 
l«et«a sic omnonit, \it dieat qtioil Immo aat albadof aed di- 
al t quod homo oat albua, Icioat habana albadlaas. Rt BlMle 
oat de corsT^oeitlone fanaaa at vatarlaat nan anlaal aisnlfl- 
cat Id quod habat aatorlaB aanaitlvan, ratlonala varo quod 
kdbat naturan IntalleotlTany hoam vero qx;od habet ntnaiqiia, 
3oerata8 iraro quod habat oaiiiia baac euB mtprla InHlrl'inall; 
at aaeuBdim banc idantltatis ratlonan Intallaetua noetor 
VMB eaa^xmlt altarl craadlettndo," S.T., T, B^, ^, i^ 3. 

12* **•.. conaldaranduB oat quod nulta aunt roniuncta aeeunduo 

ram, quoraa xmva nan aat da Intallectu altarlua: aleut alboai 
at m«lo«Bi eoni iinptintor In all quo aubloctn, ot tajwri unt» 
aoB aat da iritelleetu alterlus, et Idao potoat wmm aapara- 
tla intallli^ aina altaro," In 17 Phy.« 3 [5j; "Cirea priaua 
oaaaldarandtoi aat, quod aarw quaa aunt In mboa eonjuneta, 
oontinglt unun sine altoro 5.ntAlli(d, et vera, duinoodo unus 
•orua Bon alt In ratlona alt«rlua," Tn TTT He ^n., 12 l? 
78lj. ~' 

13. S,T,, I, 50, ?, c. The error Is hflre attributed to AtIcb- 
^ron who ia aald^ln He Sg, Creat ., 3, c,, to atsplox the 
Platonic Tla . ^orooTwr, it is here related to tJt» oodiM 
Tjrlnciples, ff. In J^eriLh. [Ij; In Oe (in. (Uljj In TIT Pe 
Jin., 1? i^ 79l>7di~?nT fty.. TiJJf^n TT V^T, 3 C<^if 
Tn TIT Beta., B lWi?J| In Wl Iteta., 1 H^^l ilin IT ^ta., 
TU202JJ S.T., I, 76, 3, ai hT^ ^n. Tntell . ,T U 136^ 
112 J 5 De ;>p." 'creat . , 3» «! 3| art l^ad 17? T^e fiub . ;>p . Llj; 
al»o At w roa a , In XTI Hgta ., cob . 39 132?tJi "Intalleetaa 
ealB aatoa aat dividero adonatA in asae In aa ex qulbua eon- 
ponuntur, qiianria nan dlvldantur In esaef aicxit dlTldit aate- 
riaa a foma et foraa a conpoaito ex mterla et fonut}" 
ATicenna, t'eta ., 'riJ, 2 iF 223-2?bje "I'na eat opinio eorun, 
quod cua rma aat axpollata ab nliquo noo eat adjwwtaw ai re- 
apaetua allua, profeclo axpoliata est ineaae alb ao^ quanad- 
nodiBi ai id eul aljquld adiunctum eat conaiderana per ae alne 
e o B al darati ona aiua quod slM adiunrtuei e.'<t. Ian enin conai- 
deraati illud non ad.1unctuH illi , ct o!mino run ronsidera- 
rtarle illiid aina eondltlona ooniunetioida iaa putabit t« 
conaidaraMM Iliad cub cond<t5ona noa eoniunetioida. It« ot 
noB oporiaat oonaiderare illud nisi non c<^!iltaK;tuB, qnaaria 
ait eoniunctuB. Sad quia intellectua apprahandlt Intellecta 
quaa aunt in Munde sine conalHerati ana alas eui adiuBslt«r, 
idao pvta^reruni quad Intellaetus non apprahandlt niai BapB. 
rata ab eia. Hon aat aataar ita, 1r>o oania raa sacandua quad 
iB saipaa aat habat amai r aa p a e t — , et aeeuRdVB quod iuncta 
eat alii habet alius r aepa etw , loa enic euai IntelliiilBua 
vart>l gratia foTBHi hoRinia inouantua eat forea boainia, ao- 
luanodo lan i ntelli (daeus allquld quod aoloBaodo aat aaenndua 

;SSd TI tW^ »*»4»if 


r J 



y\ k:^' i V ;v .'. - 







fc. -. . - -- :_ ^_. 



II PlMri TT 6?6 
Chapt«r IT 
k; 5 

qucd wit In ■•. S«d <nc hoc quod IntelliglMtta nan oport«t 
quod Bit solus ct Bttparatua. Coniuiictuii •nla mx hoe quod 
««t IpstR iwn «Nit s«*nArAtum ancuMtaB nadTa tmif^tianlM, non 
seeuadiai Bodua pri a qua lntelll8;ltur saparatio ex- 

l8i«iit1««. Ifnn ast autea nolila dlffleila lotalUitara aa- 
antai apprahaMilOBaai val par rellquas dispoaitionaa unua 
ax duobua, quorua unun aat acllleet quod non eat da natura 
aiw aapararl a albl acatancio In aodatantla, qua«vla aapa- 
raUo* ab ao In daflnltlaaa at Intantlone at eartltudina, 
eiBi fuerlt elua eeo^ltude w>n aoritanta Intra cartltudinan 
altarlaa, quonlan eaaa cun illo faeit dabara eaaa eonliuicti» 
oaan non cont-'narl In intentionlbrts." 

111. "Et qui.i -'lato non eooaioaravlt quod dlctm aat am coipliel 
■odo ('>tn<xlo aaapotltlanla at dlvlsionls; !»odo aLtipllcltatle/, 
».T., T, BSf 1, ad 1| '*... oonia quae dixinua abatraM per 
Tn€»lle6t«i t^amUR abatnwta aaaa aoeoarhjar ram,* 3.T, i6Ui» 

15. In lata. [l?j; vlda "MatbaMtlea" ; "vSaparata." 

Section 5 

1. "Selanckn aat autam, ad avldantiaM huit; caoltull, quod un5- 
iraraala duplicli«r *wt«at aeclpi, Lno -locio pro ipsa natum, 
eni Intollectua attribuit intenttonen unlversalltatias et 
sifi unlTornalla, ut iranera it vpmeimBf anbatantias ranai 
a1<miflcant, ut praadleavtur In qfuld. Aniaal aola mlgtAti- 
cat mibet.ant5<m ^.ItWj rie quo Tvraadleatur, »t hoso aladlltm*. 
Alio nodo pofeaat mmeifii unlvaraalB Inqaantua aat onlvaraale, 
et aecumhai qvotf i«t«ra praodieta aubfMst Intantioni unlver-> 
salltatls: ideat aacundir) quod eonaldaratur an'lnal vel boaOf 
ut umin 1n aultls, t ale noouertmt 'latonicl aninal et 
hondnaH In ava wd'wraalitata aiMa sttbatantlaa," te TIT 
Mteta., n [r 15701 cf. S.T., T, 85, ^, f^ 1, and aaa "Uni- 
^paraalia ~ " 

2* "... intentlo universalltatla eonaaqultur aoduB intalllf^endl 
qui oat p»r abatraetionea," S,T., T, f^«^, l, ad Uf cf, S.T,," 

It 7^1 3, ■? ^. 

3. "Slo Iplt^ir itatet, qxied naturae coianal nor potest attrlbal 
intfintlo >miTAn<;aitatle nial aaaoHini mm— otsod habat la 

tnteli-ortu f &\c mrtia aoliia «at umsa da multis, nroet Intal- 
ligltur nraetar rrlnclpla, qui boa ana la anltla divldlturf 
uada ralinqultup, quod ual^arealla , eaewMtaa quad aaat uai- 
iparaalla , non eunt nial \n anina," Tn ■'T V>e _n., 12 i? IHOj. 



«)l>i^ ei'^'^ • 


: ', S! "< 

o^W A4i£ WA^ «^ «;^ (i. 








.ti;*t. -^ ikj. 

II 9t% II 627 
Chapter IV 

li. 3 IH 23-29 J. 

5* Ibld«» footnot«s, p— !■ « 

6. "lAtura aMt«a uwl ••■•ntia sir aocapta potost dupllciter 
L," lbl<U U 2ii.I>2j. 

7> "Ono moao seeuodiuM ratlonaa propriMif •% hae aei «bMl«te 
eooaldarai^o Ipaltta, at rtoc modo nichil eat usrua da aa 
nial quod eonuanlt slbl aaeundOB quod httivaaodi,..." ibid. 
IR 23.2-5J. 

8, *firg« patet quod aatura haninis absolute consideratA ab- 
stract « quollbet assa^ Ita taaan quod non fiat praelalo 
aUmlw eanny" ibid. (R 26.8.10]. 

9, "7art)l gratia hcnlnl ^n quantun aat hono ewmenit ratlonala 
et aniaal at alia qua in difflaitiaia aiiw oaduat,..." lbld« 
(H 23.6.aj. 

10. "Hee aut«i natura babat duplex os8«f losai in slngularibsa 
et aliud in anlna} at seouaduja utruaque eonacqaltur dictaa 
naturaa aecidens , . . . " ibid* i'd 25.9-11 J« 

U.- "... aleut dicitur q\iud hoao eat albua quia vocrataa eat 
•Itoua, quaauia tioc non eumiMiiat koaiiii in ao qnod aat 
>," ibid. IH 25.6-: J. 

12. "Ipaa aula aatum hwiia in intellaetu haV«t aaae abstx-aetea 
«b awiboa ladividwatitaat vt Idao haV«t ratioaaa uaireraaa 

«d orcDia indlnidua <ius aunt extra anlaaa.... Et ex hoc quod 
talaa relaeionaa habet ad eaaia indiuidaay intallectas ad- 
JBoaait rationta opaclai st attrlbuit albl,...'' ibiu. iu 26. 

13. "Vade ratio predicabilitatls poteat claudl in ratioaa haiua- 
aedl Int'^ntlonla que est genua , qae alaillter pw aetun io- 
taUaetua ceanlatur. HichiloalaQS taaan id «ui iatellaeiaa 
iataatleiwa pradieatianla attrlbuit, cor^ponena illud eua 
alio, non eat ipoa iatentio ^ner^a, aet petiua lUurl eul 
Intellaetus irtentiooeo «;enerlB attrlbuit alcut qfuod aigaifl- 
cattr hoe aoalaa aaiaal* flic ergo petal qnaliter aaaantla 
uel aatura ee habet vl rationaa apeelei , nuia ratio apociei 
•aa aat de hils que conaaaJLant. el aaauadaa abaaltttaa auaa 
•aaalderationea, !iee eoiaa de accidaaftlhaa qiue eenaeeuatnr 
ipaaa aecundiai eaae quod habet extra anioaa ... aet est de 
aecidentlbue que conaecuntur eaa aeeuadua ease quod habet in 
intellaetu a et aaeandaa bme aadaa coouaalt edaa aibi ratio 

et dl^-ferentle," ibid. [R 29.16-30 j. 

- - t J 




-- i 



o^xisi i 

t^' — > c . » ?i ' -? ^ 4^ •tl>'^*''* •' • JM^j 

■ot««i Pari Tir 629 
rhapter Tf 
SMtlon S 

^* D* 'Pt« at g— jj^Jli. 

15. '*Allqiuuido autsB hoa qpiod sliinifleat mmmnh non Mt •ialli- 
tudo rtl foiatentla extra mxtimukp aad eat aliquid quod eon> 
aaquitur ax aodo Intailigeiidi rea quaa act extra aniatB) at 
ku^uaaodi amt latantlanaa qaaa Intallaetiw noatar adia- 
vault) aieui algBiricatua hujus noainia *gani«' Don aat ai- 
■illtodo allcttjua ral axtra arAmm axlatantla) aad ax bo* 
qttod Intallactua intalligii animal ut in plurlbua apaalabua, 
attribuit al intantionan ganarla at hujuaaodi intantioaia 
licet proodjns foadaaantui nan sit in rn, sec in :ntellectu, 
taaen reaotum fuadHaentua eat vm insa. Unda intelleetua 
ae« oat falsma, nid has iniantiom^a adin^snit. tX aialle 
aat de oanlbiia aliia qui aoaaeqauntur ex aode InteUigendi, 
■iettt eat abatruetio aathenaticoriB et hx Jusaodl," In I 
bent,, 2, 1, 3, aol. 

16. E,j« "•.. quia ale gaaus et 8|M«iaa nam predicarentur de hoc 
indiulduo) nan enia potest dlei qucxl ^^oeratea ait hoc quod 
ab eo aaparatua eat, aae 1 tenia lllud separatiai proficiet 
In cojnit onea hsius almmlaria," He "^nte ct ' .^aentla , c. 3 
(h 23.22.25 J) "Ubo nedo aeeunihsi ratioaea ?repriaa, et hac 
est absolttta conelderatlo ipptuo, ct hoc -lodo nichll est 
ueruB de ea nisi quod conuenit sibl secund^n quod halusnodi, 
Tnde quicquld aliwrua attrlbuatur albl falsa est attrlbntlo. 
Terbl f^atia hom^nl in quantoa eat hoao conuenit rationale 
et aniaol et alia qaa In dlffinltiona elua eadwt; albua 
uero aut nlgmn, aut qttlcquld hulusnodl quod non est de ra- 
llone h'JBanltntia, non conuenit hor^n^ *n quantum quod boawa 
Vnde al qoeratur utroa lata natara ale eoaslderata poaait 
did una xael olorca neutna concedandaa oat, quia utnua^ue 
extra intelleetua IHMaaltatia, et utnnqae potest sibl ao- 
cl' i'vre, 1 enixa plaralltts esset t!** intoHectu elus, nun- 
quaa poaaet esse una eva taeen tma sit aecuadua quod est in 
Soerate. .SlMliter si unites sssst de rations eiua, turn 
•aaet uaa et eadaa Socratis et Platonls et noa posset in 
plurlbus rlurlficari* Alio aor^o corsideratur secnndoa esse 
quad habet in hoe uel ia illo, et ale de ipsa aliquid predl. 
eatur per aoeidene, raVone eius in ouo pst, sicut dicitup 
quod boao est albus quia bocratas est albus, quaauia hoc non 
contieniat hsalBi in eo quod est Iwow," ibid, i ?i..?-25,8j| 
"Si enia BBaaawltM essat da inlellectu hoainis, tunc In 
quolibot inueairetur hixaanitas inuenirotur eoaaunitas, et 
hoe falsua est quia in Soerate non inuaaitar eeaaoBitas ali- 
qna, sed quioquid in eo est est Indiuldnatna," IMd , tT ?7. 

17. Ibid. iR 23.22.?5ji vide l6 aupra . 

dSft V iHt^ t 

i m--^ •-• u ■ 

^. . , „..., .s 

t- -■ - ■ t -- 


! !• K 


30tf t^ vr^^ortt' Ron ae t9««ra ^ atMiaa e«N ££vp . . . i .dl 

ijc T 

C . miuA *> ml 

,tbr >9 tiDtfi> fattt am i» 


•ow ««tfl« iKte Ob #f 8 n 

nt p 

Hi • 

m n«n at t. ? 




1 .YI 

RoftMt PtX II 629 
Chapter IV 

18« *l^ qui« natttre ^wmc sacuiiduK* aVx«>>liitt» mum noiiBidvra- 
tlonm ronti«fdt quad pradlevtar d« flocrate, •! ratio apaelai 
non eonuenit b*M n#»c'nv*Bw abaolotan roas conalrteratlon*^, 
••% aai d« ae«ld»nt1bus que eonaoavniar tas aeeandna 99bb 
qaod habat in *< lo ncnan ftpnelei nor tx-adlc«t4ar 

da Saorata at dlc^v^ wuci-ai.aa aat apaciaa, quod da aaeaaalo 
tata *rei«*«r«t ?«1 ratio B^reclel. conu^nlrwt '^cr'Tii K«e«ndnB 
9m»B quod habai in Soorata, u«l e ac u tid u a anaa eonaldarationan 
abaalataaj rclUeei in quant\a ^at hoaos '^uirqu'd enla con- 
uaalt hoalnl in quantai aat teaa pradieatur da Socrata," 
*•-■' (H ?9.1.11i. 

19* *^«di«atlo anla aat quiddan quad compXetiar par actlonaa 
intelloctua conpanantla at diuidentla, habasa frndaaaiitaa 

la ra !->»* rmltatoa aonaa quoiua axsui: c> ali^ro dicitur," 
ibid. i'. 29. 13-16 J I cf. S,T., I, 85, 5, ^ 3. 

20. "... at hoc falBua eat quia in Socrata non Inuanitiir eoaaaml- 
taa allqua^ jed quicqvd'i in eo ncX aat iniiulduatua," ibid . 
tR 27.1-6J. 

21* Tbe diatinctlon la Inpliad throughout the ehaptar. Cf. In 

"T i. *■» ' > ^» gol« 

22. lis. 1 £aaafft5a. 3 (« ?«.1-9J. 

23. '^.T., , 3<, 3, aj^ V. rr. idthln tha aaM qvaationt S.T., 
' * T,""8<, ?, |d 2| 3, jsri 1. 

2ii. TVs Pot., 9, ?, ad 1| 8.T., T, 76, 3, ad Uj 65, ?, ad 2| 3, 

^ TTl, »^ >ij 5 IC-'llIS**** "^j at' ^I In T Perth .. I'^j Tn T 
Da An., l'Tl3jj l" II 2» An., 12 D78jj 12 i380j. 

25. S.T. (67 J. 

?6. Da S£. Great . tUJ(7J. 

Saetion 6 

1. Da Var. U7j. 
U In . ■ ■ .^. [<j. 

■ a 

3. "Cuaorrc M'--'...r nicxi i.^UilloC. 'alius qui latalllflt 

rmm allter quen sit, vanai 9at ai j^- .Jj.tcr refaratvr ad raa 
intellacta-?. la intallaetua aat fal«ua, qoaato intal- 



a'' ? •!$ 

, , tmrv mam Mli .(^ 


a .^5 
7 .d? 

^<1 .1 


'Xatnl o^aUh^p «*«-^^1&7 ^>yo sc/iCWJUjBiftl «>^.> :'^^'- ..;^3:..;.^-.m 

It Pari IT 630 
Chapiar VI 
SMitlon 6; 7 

llglt nM Mso alitor qiuMo ait. Uade falsiui aMvt iatel- 
laetus, •! aic Atetrahani apMian la Idis a aaterl^, ut 
intalligarat aoa aaaa ia matarla^ ut --lato noeult. Von 
sat auteiB Tarum quod propwiitur, si ly alltt^r acclciatur ex 
part* intalllfwntla. lat aaia abaqtta falaitate ut aliaa ait 
aadua intollipentia In intalligando . guaa aodua rei In ea- 
sendo; quia lrt«ll(jct\a3 eot ^r lnt« U'penta ianaterlall ter 
par aodure intallactua, non autaa aatarialitar par Bodaa rai 
•atarlalle," 3.T., T, 85, 1, ad 1. 

U, In Mata. Ll?i. 

5. S.T. 152 J. 

6. In Mata . [1?J. 

7. S.T., I, 76, 3, ad iij IB II ne An., 12 t? 37e-380j. 

:8, S.T. 152 J. 
9. In Sent , ("^j, 

10. Tha axaonles include tho one of i^araanidea as a coaoion 
prwHeata, tha nuibcra of tha tythatcavaaM and Flato, "mm" 
aa a coeB^en predicate and tho unity of natter in AYieebrott. 
Ibid . 

11. In De Trin. [lij. 

12. Tt doaa ^>p«ar aa a particularised critique of the colgin of 
substantial fcaroa frea aaparatad principlaa. ^.^. L26i. 

13. In B, De Trin ., 5, 2, c. 

ooction 7 

1. Ariatotle, ^ietaptgaica. I, 6 L987a 29 - 987b 20J, 

2. In I ;?£ta., 10 ir I5l-l57j. 

3. In aeta . 112 j. 

U, Pe Sub . 3ep . llj. 

5. B.£. In "eta . ll8jl22jl7BjU8iiiU86j. 

0^ n 4-wfi 


T .^ 


•to I 

•» «^ «< c jC .f.I 

miVH-JZL T'l oi. I at .9 

.„ .. L TT 631 

Chapter TV 
aaetion 7 

6. "!!•€ OT'iortet, gjcut rrultotlea dlctna est, qaod alimiid mm- 
dm aodina Asaandl hab«at ^r. mhvm per ^uem Todtw ab lnt«l- 
loctu Bdentiji ccwprehendltur," In T^^ -teta ., 9 [<" Ui6j. 

7. Tn ■ -' ' ^ iV?J[37jUljU2jt!i8jU9j 

8. Tn Ifljl?? ^^ 1 A1U2 AlU'i AihhiLlhb i 

u^ --a?2ju . ..- .- 3j. 

9. In Ue^a . l33jl3$jtii3jLlii7j. 

10. In MBta. t8jt33jt9$jl2ii6jLlii7j. 

11. Tnjteta. ao9jLlli6JU55jil73j. 

12. In Mata. ll;Bj(5?Jl66j(67jL7UA75jll3(. J. 

13. In feti. i37jl39jtUOjlUljU2jtUijjU9Jl50jt?lijL67ji68ji69j 

ll«. In*ta. L3l:jL3?it36ji37j[56jU75j- 

15. Tn peaklRF bars of thn Hatarhylca «• ar«, of course, con- 
sldarini? it an 5t lies under :it. ihcraaa' Interpretation, as 
It waa read by hin and not as It Tsust be tnxlflrstood hiatorl. 
nallj In Itself. 

16. In M«ta . tii7j; cf, tl32j. 

17. InMeta. IWj. 
16. In Mata . lL9-5lJ. 

19. In \ret» . i,$?-ShU 

20. In I Meta ., lb' 1236 j. 

21. In fcta . t55i. 
2?. Tn Tfeta . i56j. 
23. In Meta. U?j. 

Ctb U ^-(tfl 





t ■ 


-OMi .(KVWO )e «•!• r 












• -T 












.i^I] .^rj I'.'' 


.l:'^-':>] . <ii»tf nl .91 

.t^.i ,J. «»**3* I ol -OS 

.1 I .IS 

llot«8: Part TT <12 
Chapter TT 
8««tlon 8 

boctlon ^ 

!• S*T*y ly 66f ^f t» 

2, Oalger therefore rightly coTWlf1«^B this a ba«lc thaals in 
St. TtaoiUB' own doctrine. 

3, The aba traction nrlnrlple la «ttrtbnted to or attaehad to 
tha FlatoBlcl in Da Sp, Cr«*at . Ujil<j; Jn T>e Gen. at c or. 
nil In ra PlY. HoB.'T?o7r57". ["^Uj; I>a :>ug7 S«^. TIjTlf^Jl 
In Da Caaaian rij. In the conmintary on the >ia taphyaies tha 
prlatary analyala is attributed to Plato (Tn !ata . llf7T» 
but throu(;hoi:t the ratlones anc' >>nag Are aaalgnad now 
to Plato, now to tha ^atcnlel , Ver. (l7J and Pa StA . 
Sep. 11 J the 2iS i» Plato's but It la tha baala for tlS 
poeltlonea of tha Platcniel . 

h. In S. Jo. [Ij dlatlngulahea the orlnlon of "alll" Platonic! 
Tron tKt of '»lato hlawalf. T"or "aHqtrf" or "qcirlan Plato- 
^^,.; n „«„ "j^ Ver. [lljj i^a 3p. Treat . [<J| Tn "hy. [27jj 

?J; Tn JJB r. ^ M. l.'^j, Tn Le Hlv. ^. [Ijlllijj 
i>.£.' Ufcjl-?jj '"7?. L?Oj[?EjT Tn Tn «eta ."TY37j and 1185] 
^wo groura of ^aTonlsta are dlstlncul aSad, ffo tpct, hrm~ 
afar, nointa to a diffaranee In the via. 

5. Aa N« ahall a«e, the fteidaaMintal thaaia with regard to tha 
soul la not reducible to ^la analyala. There are alao tmy 
other generalised errora vfaleh are aald to ondarlla Platonic 
poeltlona. Ona of theao la the confuaion of the caia of being 
with tha one of nanberj "... non dictln^abat Inter mran quod 
aet prlnclrlun maaeri et unua quod '^onvortltur cum enta,..." 
In lata. Ll3jj b«9 alao T)e Pot. L?ljj In ?ty . l23j; In Post . 
5«E~r8jl9j| Tn vcta. [njTIlIjll07J[lI5j} Tn T)e ^n.T^TT" 
Tn r>e C, et *t, I30j; S.T. [s^J. In thla error sI.Thoaaa aaea 
tha graaiff'^r tha rwltictlon of the separated apedea, of tha 
antetanea of thlnga and of naterlal entitlea to nunbara and 
■athaaatieala. The other grenarallaad error is ttte failxure 

to dlatinpjlsh privation aiad aattari "Platonlcl ... non rila- 
tlnguantea Inter ipaaa [ae. witariaaj et nrlYatlonew," Tn 
Wy . [!ijj aee alao Tn ^hj. [''>' JZ -*i2' l'''^JU?7i; In 
iCrlh . [7Jt Tn T»e Mv.1?ow. I'^jl ,; \n a ^auala [flj; S.T, 

6. St. Thoaaa explicitly atatea certain poaltlona In which 
Arlatotle ahd Plato are foiuid to ba In af[r«e9aRt. Tha 
asraaaent la aehlwad In Tarloua ways. Tn aogia cases, a 
peaitlon of Plato la Intorpretad as being only varbally dif- 
ferent. Thxia the Ariatotallan argUBanta of tha De Aniaa 

af? •«MK'*«Vf 

J :j^.i .\ .." »&' 

oi b •«• ol k«. C •€ 


Aiif 'a>l a-'a^^ 6>v Hi a i 

! .4 



^.„ oS ^^ _. ...---. 4 


0«££ ••• 

B»«E : — --- 

.T.g lit T 

*" "" . , i j 

■otMi Part II 633 
ClMpUr IT 
SMtien 8 

•Calmi ihft conception of th« soul ae a "aafrnltudo" arc aaid 
to bo ara^nst the "rarba" of Plato^ not agalnat his D«anlag 
(In Ym An* L17i). Tor tha sana tjpe of interpratatlon, aa* 
In rfy .Tl'^.il?6jt IB yata. [lOOji Tn Da c. at W, tBjiUjLUj 
IIliJl25jl33j. St.ThoMa fouwl the nrTriclrl? ^ thaaa lnt«>r- 
pratatJona in Theciiatlua and ;'lnr>lir1ufi; aae boturces under 
toxta alted. Halatad to th^e sort of 1 ntarpretat* on la that 
found In tha taxta r9p<tt>tlnf; Plato's thaory that the first 
mormr or tha soul "lored itself: "... "lato poeuit qiiod n©ua 
■orat sc-'^oum,..," 5,T. tllJj "••• aniiM raovet selpaaw se- 

cunf»vr '"-t ....''Tnr* \n. tli6j. See ^- --.t, {5j['^?j| 

In . _ Pot."T2TIj :« An. [?j. ^ P^* U9i 

T29Jlllj| Tn ^ta . (X9?ij Tn r© An. ll{6j; 15 i© C. at «. t32j; 
Tn re rausis TTiliaj; £.2. UTr<^ iJ-I. Ulj; ^>e~ ub. ~ep . 
IIj, !fera tha apparent opposition i8'*ra»oTed by dlatlnguiah- 
ing the neanlnn of "novore": "Sciendua auter? quod Plato, qui 
poeuit onna novena aovarl, coaauniua aeceoit noisen Botita quasi 
Aristotelaa. Ariatotalaa anla propria aocaplt moXxm, aacun* 
dun quod est actus existentls in potentia secundinD qucd 
halu»nodl: quallter non oat nisi divislbllium at corporua, 
nt proibatur in V7 Physic, Secundin Platonea auten ■o v eaa 
a«lpBixB non eat corpus t accipiel>at enia motca pro quallbet 
oporationa, ita quod intelligare et orlnari ait quoddaa do- 
reri; quow etiaa no&tm loquendl Artstotelea tanglt In TIT 
de Anina. Sacundua hoc ergo dlcobat prianai ■onrana aeipaua 
aoiwra quod intwlliglt se nt vult vel aautt sa. Quod in al^- 
quo non rcpngnat rat'onibua Arlstotaliat nihil aniic differt 
^ewnir*! ad aliquod priana quod monreat sa, seeundun Platonem; 
at devenire ad prlnun quod onraino ait iacidbile, secuixlus 
ArlatoteleM," r,^, (ij, ScBetinae the concordance of roei- 
tiona is sip^lj Fl '«" in the aourcas) thus, both Aristotle 
and Plato hold that the heavenly bodies ire anlnatad (yy 5~, 
Creat . i9j), though aniaation aust be differently uaderstood 
("Et sic r>er hoc quod Plato ponlt corpora caelestia aninata, 
nihil allud datur intelligi quan quod substantiae aplritu- 
alea unluntur corporlbua caelestibus ut notorea iBobUlbua," 
S.T. [3^j)« A(7aln the agra— ant maj be brought about by the 
auie tort t<y -poai 1 1 o teehniqiie as in 5. T. [3 j. In all these 
casea, honteTwr, the basic rat^ o-poaitTo analysia rawalns un> 
toiiched. In principle the opposition stands and, indeed, if 
anything, becor^es clearer in the later works. Fabro appeala 
to a BiaA>er of texia to maintain on tha contrary that St. 
Thoaaa shoes an increasingly benaTolent attitude tornrda 
Plato. Pabro, howerer, ignores the distinction betwee n tha 
ratio-Doeltlo analyaia and a nesitional treataemt and, aore- 
or?or, clearly nisraada aocie texta (for exarple. In IV »letA »» 
U ic SBhi which only aakas for his point through tha oaiaaion 
of the subsequent Hnes of the text)* 

7. In Meta. I2?j. 


.. f A < - .. » .* 

_- 1 A K 


••« «r. 


jrr:. - 






• ' ' 







>DCS ti 


( J-. 
















• l«tA«v 

.[5S] . 




8. In MeU . U8J. 

10. T>£ S£. Cre«i . il5j. 

U. In v>eta . Cl2j. 

12, Dj Sttb . Sj£, Llj. 

I'J. Dj S£. Craat . tbj[7j. 

lb. Jto Do Hen. et Cor . {lij. 

II taK II ':3i4 
Chapter PT 
Hmctian B 

*d I 


1 '^ 

1 .01 


1 .a 

NoiMi Fwri Ti 635 

Chapter V 

aumn v 

1. "^oft Chanter VT^ , 

2» Qb this r*olnt a— OaiRor, o p . cit ., p. 119. 

"*• In P« Trln . llJi In M»ta . [12 J j S.T. L52j. 

i). Ib B, D© Trln ,, 5, 2, c.} 3, cj o.T., T, 75, li, c; 85, 1, 
S "?. - - - 

5. S.T., T, a5, 1, ad 2| 75, h, c; In T ^., 1; In VTI Meta .. 
9-11; Quodllb ., 2, 2, Ji, c. 

6. In VII Weta ., U; cf. In «eta. U36jU6lij !>• Vjr., 9. 

7. In VII jteta., 11 ic l507-l509i. 

8. In D« An. [3jt6j| T>e Un. Intcll . [9j; In Meta, tl52jj In 

9. S.T. [7JII0J. 

10. I« MjU. [8Jt9j; In De Oto. at Cor. il]. 

11. In Hcta . i8Jl9J. 

12. In llata. l7jL17lijj C.O- t21j[2lijj b.T. t22jl27j[72i£75J| 
Pa Sub . Sao . [6j, 

13. S.T., I, 88, ?, c. 
II4. In Mata. I33i. 

15. In Ktfa. 19J. 

16. In Mata . L33jU51ii. 

17. Da Pot. t23Jf ija 5£. Craat . I12jll5j| l>9 An. UjiHiJf In 
pSatTAnal. i6j; Tn «i5r'i7jU2j(97j(llilTl25Jlll;3ilinri 
TIII5jil5^U67 J a72 J a'>0iLl'?2 J} in P>rih . tlijL6jj In la An. 
iliUli-^Sii In ^ Tr^n. [5jj Tn 5 gaSTa ilij; S.T. iU^ 
Da Sub , Sep.Tlj; Da Kat. Pan . UJ. 

18. Da Var. [17Ji In Mata. L23i| In Pa An. L39jU1jU'<J. 

19. In Mata. [95jilii6j[UL7j. 

\ .X 
•• «i! aS ^ t ' i i'i-J^'? 

•CcXilT) .T.e .^ 

..,, -i .01 

|l^JttT3in]lS«l .T.E ildSJlIS] .P.O -' - t .SI 

arci . i .iii 

•i?J •i^a oX .<L£ 

*lii * ik^C .i^iji ii 4iJ-» '.aEi. *Xii^ ^ 

.if liJlIiill^J .flA ^. oT UtSj V -^ -fix 

.tVilXjlWlJi^l .**2» ^ .^ 

■•tMi Part Tl 636 

20. InMsta. Ili46j. 

21. Us ^. t6Jt7j| In Sth t, i8i| to tota. t95j. 

22. r)< Vt. [6jt7j| In bth. t8j. 

23. In nw. [21 J, Tn B«ta . [171 Ji cf. In .( Iteta .. 1 [f^ 1920- 

i^-iTTi ? [i<337"rro^srr: 

2U. InPJar. [?2i}InW£ta. ll71jU73j. 

25. Inlth. [8j. 

26. 5» S2. ^reat . [7J| S.T. (26j. 

27. De gub . Sep . [ij. 

26. Do S£. Croat . [lj[7jj '^.T. [26jj Tn T^ Caual* [ljt7jt23jj 
In rj "I^^^ » L20J; r^ rub. 5]on."IljTlB7I 

20. He Sub. Sop , [ij, 

30. SooKHote 13, rhaptor T*, Soetion l. 

31. Tn VTT «eta.. llf ef. In TT Plj., 3 15-6J| In Til WoU ., 8 
TC Ulaii S.l,, I, 76, Tl i^Cj Us S£. rreat ., 3, ^T? M 
15| ad 17. " 

32. Ll?j; Tnlp^rn. L'^iU BiLh^J; . l6ji 
ITljj I^ Sp. Croat . [12 J } Cogp . Th. TlT. 

33. IsBEte- il90JU98J. 

3I;. I* saparate liHtlnirs ha^a boon ffl'vvn for this print in tha 
jiaalytie Indax , sine* It mna thron<Th noiit of the teztaf 
aao, taowrar, *FonMa Saparataa," "Spaclos Separata*" and 
"Uni-veraalla ^aoarata." 

3?. In no Wy. Kob. [Ijj S.T. i.3j[58J. 

36. ■'... ut A'^'^totelofl watlpllcitor ijirrohat," S.T. i3jj ef. 
_j_.T. L . -i I, fili, li» c. 

37. l2l^I!il« 222» tlJf S.T. t3J. 

38. TnEth. i7jillJU3JUgJi In Meta. lll<Jjll29jll30i. 

39. De 3p. Croat . [7j| b.T. iBlij. 
UO. In Etr.. ;-,. 

,ib(U\ I .OS 

-OS^X 31 X » al .13 |i >, .€> 

•Li £ .TS 

•U) •058 .difa »g .^s 

a ^.jUaJI IT'^ nl I. I<il ,. .XC 

b* li tm ,C t»£»L_ '^i^ .li. 


•^^, , . ^^ j* 

.imit] .T.e iixi -25* -r ' ^I '^f 

.to : .2 •,i. . ■ .^ 




,iOiiii^t\ -^rri 

.£.tar cT 



• i**-i .^^ 




•d^ al 


NotMi Pltrt TT f^rf 
fhaptw V 

Ul. In fth. (7JUlJtl5j| Tn tet*. (U9J. 

I?. In bj £«u2l£ [9JI In MjW. il90j. 

Ii3. In MeU . U<»0jll98j| In ^. l?lj. 

Ui. S.T., T, "51, 111 r.n., T, 26. 

U5. Tti S. Jo, l-»jj In Pth. llhJi In ngst. Anal , [lOJf S.T, l85j. 

146. Thia nolnt will b« diaetWMd In Chapter I, Saotioa 6. 

Ii7. E.J. ao« P* £iu^« S^P * tlflJ. 
U8. 8,T,, T, li, ?, c. 

50. 3.T., I, 3, ii, c,| li, ?, c.| r* Pot., 7, 2, ad 9| f .0., I, 

fC ~ " "" ~ 

51. !■ I 5cnt .. 3? and 3^>. 
5?. !}• Var ., ? and 3. 

53. 5.T., I, li: and l5. 

5I4, C.O,, T, Ulj to 72; 51 to 53 corara the Divlna Idaas. 

55* "(tada e«i T)mm alt in 9mano laNaiarialitaa ... aaqaltar quod 
alt in 8ui9!<«o eo{*nitionia,«.." .s.T., I, Ih, 1, e.; "••. par- 
faetlonas ... altiorl node muiT In Doe ... vm£i aciantia wtm 
eat lualltoM in Heo vol habltna aad avbatantla at aetoa 
IRurna/ ibid ., tA 1\ "Cua Igitur l>wm n^hil potaaliAlltatia 
habaat, »9A ait aotua purua, opcriat,..." S.T., I, lii, 2, e.; 
*Taata aat autea Tirtaa Dal in eognciaa«ndo7 quanta aat actu- 
alitas in exiatendo,..." ibid ., 3, c.j cf. In I Sant ., 35, 
li 1» £•! ^» £.; ;^ Ver., 2, 1, c.|"?, c.j S.T., I, Ui, 2, 
ad 2} ad 3; 11$ cj TTf e. ~ - - - 

56. *IVaua aeit ofoija qnaaeuaqua aunt quocinque oodo," S.T., I, 
111, o, c; cf. iB T ^ant., 35, 1, 1, c.f 5, c.| 3^ I, 2- 
C.J 3> ^ar,, 2,T, r.j <?, c.| 12, c.j~13, e.7 S.T,, I, lit, 
t, C.J 157 £•) ad 2i7 ~ ~ " 

57. "Qaaavla in rao non ait allquid aatariala, aed «es«ntia ejua 
•It actua twkntus), tvm^n ^lla aetua eat eana* emdttB qaaa 
•«Bt in r« ... quaa aetaa laltattir gnwrti jMtaat n— ia raa 
et quidquid ia re eat; at Idao assantia dlTina aat aiailltudo 
non tantini faraaliUB, aad atiaa aaterl alius raij at ideo :^r 

■f «<■ 

4X51 ♦Xfi ^ UMll"^*' >£a»Si "^^ 


;^-. «.^ ^ t. V 

♦3 i .ta 

,T t.0.2 t? ^ fS 

•a»»bl •ntrKI mAi etevoo C^ •i I^ ; 

Aon ^ - . 'J 

aj^iM ie 1 bos - 


tot ' 
«on shaco iamityq maituutp ^* 

■a4Mi Purt II *3B 
ChapUr V 

Ipaam poMunt cognoaol slnffuXu-U atiaa In qoantua tauju«. 
•odl," In I Lent ., 36, 1, 1, tjd 3| cf. Da Ver., 2, 1, c,| 

C.G., T, 51i;"T3., I, lii, 6, c.| 8, C.I 9,^ 2; 1?, c. 

58. "... '«U8 absque dublo aoBiua ei univwMliui •! aingulariuB 
cognltlonM hakMt ... idmo pur •M«iitl«i ran vieut p«r c«u- 
•«■, totuB quod max in p« cognoBclt, et fanHlla et aaterla- 
Uai uBito non Uatoa e<HPMMlt res soewidaB aatoFM iuilT«r- 
aales, sod aocurvha quod snat Indi-riduataa par aaterlaa.... 
Daaa partirularia cofmoaelt nequa uzdVBrBalltar naque par- 
tloularltar ex part* coRnoaoantis aed unl vers all tar at par- 
tlevlarltar ax paria ral eoenlia»" J^ I ^>ant .. 36, 1, 1, c.; 
Ibid., ad 1. The arguaent depanda on the uaiveraal eauaality 
oTTTodj "... n«uB non taatua alt cauaa aaaa rarun aad omaAvm 
qpaa In raVua aunt.... Htnu ... codaa node cognoedt raa 
quo aodo easa rabus tradldit ... quia noa poniwa tman la- 
■adlata oparanten in rabua oaadbua, et ab Ipao aaaa non 
aolna orinclpla foraalia aad atlan aatarlaa rel,..." In I 
bant., yG, 1, 1, c. ii>mm artpwBnt ibid., jd 2| «i 3j ad hi 
c?7 "ibid .. 3^, if"!* C.I 2» £•! 3t £.) 36, 2, 3» c,| C^., 
If 50; !« Vfir., 2, B.^c.i U, c.j 5, c,| 3, c.; li», c,; o.?.. 
If lit, ^ £•» 11» c. 

$9, "... at Idao aclentia Lai eat una nuaero OBBlia rerua quia 
par uma aadlvs alapliciaslaua q\u>d eat sua aaaantia ooBia 
namaanlt," In I sent . , 3^, 1, ?, s^ h\ "... ita atlaa pro- 
pria aoBvaniunt i>ao propter unlcxin at aianlax ainm aaaa, 
quod oan^UB in aa Tirtuta imif oral tar praaaeeipit .•• cub 
aain in aliia craatnria invaniatur aaaa, Tivara at intelli- 
l^tfa, at oMda hojiwodi aae undim dlTeraa in ela axiatantia; 
in i>ao taaon usoa anua aioplex aaaa babat oanlnn horaa vir- 
tatm at parfactl one?^," iMd., 1, 1, ad 2; "... ea quae aunt 
dlTlsuB ot ■ultlpllcltor in creaturis, in Dao aunt alspllci- 
tar at unjta,..." ...T., I, lU, 1, ad 2j "Kt ale patat ... 
qvad in iao intollactua, et id quod intalllgltur et spaelaa 
isialligibilia at ipaoa intelllKore sunt onninc unua et 
Idara," ibid ., U, c.| cf. C.*^., I, 53j SU. 

60. Tte doiA>Ia aourca in indicated by tha rarallala rumiac 

tfaraocb tha contra ' a i e.j. "Centra eat quod dlcitur ad Coloe. 
11, 3t Tn iraa auat oamaa ttaaaaarl aapientlaa at saiantlae 
abaeondlti et C-onanUtar XI iiata,>b. text. eoa. 39 dlelt, 
quod Tlta et sdentia propria aaaa in Pao dicuntur. 

Praeteraa, nulla ;-erfecVo daaat ei qui perfectlssi-wa 

^f. aat. Sad aeiantia eat nablliaalaa perfactia. Ergo Doo, in 
qao oHdoi ganaroi parfaetiaaaa adanatar, ut in 9 lata. 
taxt. 21 dicitur aclentia doaata non potaat," In I Sent., 
35, 1, 1, contra . I cf, ibid .. 1, 2, contra i 3^7 1. 1. eaatra ; 
2, contr.. . 

f t 

i.o «i ^ .dC «*«AMe I ol '"«slln903 ten oi-. 

Blup munvr teftamet otmmm uta is* ttO mtitimttm, v. »••* .^ 

«•••• aoir* xaXqaJte is motnu «J ^ 

•lotXQBM lavs c- b 

Balaam al«IIjn»r erl^ t^^ b«iaoi stfl ,0d 


t • _ 



rh«pt«r V 

63. _._.. , ).. ^, 

Cii, ^•^.•t ^* ^t if f^ '-'1 Z& ^ :>aDt .» 3^t 1* ^t £• 

66. In "^ .Sor<t «, ^, 2, 1, c,; jm Ver., ''j 1, r.| S.;^. , •, 1?, 
1, c, 

67. In I ^>jmt., 36, 2| Lj Vt.. 3; ii.l.» I, 15. 
66. C.o., I, «»l-53. 

69. Ihe Chrlatian traaiUon la reor««ent«<l prlnelpaUjr by ^t. 
Avumatln* anc lloaorsiiuii of tte pbilesoplMrB, ci. Thata 
aajat "Unda apud aanas philoaophea ecmamitT dlcitur quod 
eanla atuit in •nania L9i, aieut artificiata in wnta ariifi- 
cla; at i<*«o forvaa ranoi In ^«o exiaiantaa idaaa diciauaf 
.«.■ In 1 ;>en t « , 36, 2, 1, c. 

70. 'ttaapoooao dleandum, quoa duplex eat nluralitaa. Una qui- 
tei est pXtmdltaa rmnmt at •aawMtm bee nan aani pluras 
idaaa in i/ao. Voodnai eniB idaa foraa-^ axaeplaraai aat aata«i 
MM raa qaaa aat oamiioi axHt»lar| acilieei divlna oaaantia* 

oanla iaitantury in c;uaatuB aunt et bona avnt,'' Cuoci - 

libet ., U$ 1« If c.| ef« ;>«I.f I, Uj, 3f c; Ia ^ eni ., 3^, 

2, 1, <ul ?, 

71* "bcc autea quonodo divinaa 6ir:plicltati non retupnet, fac5.1a 
aat Yidwa, ai quia aonaldarat idaaa oparatl mm— in aenta 
aiMranila aieat quod intalliciiuri aon autan aicut apaciaa 
qua intallieitur, quaa aai fat«a Taciena Intallaatiai ia 
aetii. Foraa enia doaas in aanta aadlfiaaWrla aai aliquld 
ato mm intallaetaai, w* euiua 8im?lltitd:'naB dowm In naterla 
foraat. nat auia* ao«ira aia licitataa divini iaiel- 

Xaatua» quoo aaita intallisatf aad eoatra alaplieitataa 
aiaa aaaat, ai par ploraa apoaiaa aiaa IntalXaotua foraara* 
*«•," h._i., I, 1$, 2, c,| cf. r.G., I, 53-51*. 

72. *... ralinquitur quod rat^ones rarua in ini«llfr-tu diviaa 
non snat oluraa v«l diPtlnctac ^acvuiduy hub cc^» 

noeci't •. • . ^ vera la roc^ls esse ae^^ixabiles 

alM,' _«_.j i ^na quod aaplaaftia at ara sifrni- 

ficantur ut quo i'oua intallicit^ aad idaa ut quod Daua in- 
tallipit. '^UJH iu*or imo intallactu intollip:lt aulta; et 





















lotM. <^:. 7T 6iiO 

nan sdlm ■setmrlua quod In sel ^Is ami, nmd vtiaH seeundtDi 
qfuod Intellecta sunt; cfuod mwX Intelllror© vlnrws ratlnnos 
rerun. SI cut art! f ax, dva InWUiglt rorawa danas In nate- 
rt«, rtleitur lnt#lllf»re donuaif doa aut«in IntelHnrit foman 
doBua ut a se speoulataxiy ex eo quod Intolli^t se lni«lll- 
fSwm ••», lntelli(?lt Ideaa tbI r«tlon«a dnmMi. Pwpa wtea 
non Bolun intelllglt aultaa ree pa r naamttimm SSSSL* **^ 
•JTwi Intwllljrit BO Intelllf'gra liial'U par wgtwnilap gnm . 
•^od boc~egt tntoilTgare j^luree' rat^ongg rvrxm t t»1 , pltnrag 
1<U— oeaa In intollectq oi<jr "ut lpt«lY»ct«B j" S.T., T, 1^, 
3, ad 2; "A9~oeeundun dleandm, quod cub dlclturi"'8«c«iitai 
hoe ras Bunt distlnctae^ prout neoa eana diBtinctionoa 
cognoscit; hsdc locutio eat duplex: qiiod enin dlclturt b«- 
ovBKtea qiiod netw eo^aoacit, r«ot«8t rafarrl ad cognltlanBR 
di^nan ex parte oof^itl, t«1 ex parte cof^ioaoentla* 31 ex 
parte copniti, aic vera eet loeutlot eat eria Bensua, qood 
hoc modo ree exint diatlnctae Bicut eus coirnoacit eaa eaae 
dlatinctas. Si vero referatur ad cof>nlt1oneB eir parte cog- 
noBoantla, elc lor:utlo falsa estt erlt enln BenauB, quod 
res co^tae illua fiodua dlBtlrK;t5ciilB habent In intelleetu 
dlvino quern habent In aaipala; quod falaia esti quia In se- 
Ipals rea aunt dlveraae aaaentialiter, non autas In Intel- 
leetu dlvino; sleut etlaa raa In aalpsie sunt aaterlallter. 
In Intelleetu autan dlvino ixaaterlaliter; et In hoc ultiao 
aensu pr o eedeibat objeetlOf" Quodlib ., It, 1, 1, ad ?• 

73. £«£• "Dlco ergOy quod Deua par Intallectua oania operana, 

QHOla ad alallltudlnea easantlae suae prodviclt; unde esaentia 
soa eat Idea rerun; nan quidee ut casentia, eed vt aat Intel- 
laeta. r^ea avtea creatae non uorfacte ladtantur dlvlnaa 
aaaent^aa) unle eaaentla non arcip5tur abeolute ab Intelleetu 
divlno ut Idea reraa, aed eui pn^Mrtlane ereaturae flendaa 
ad Ipaaa dlvlnaa eaaentlaai, seeunduoi quod deficit ab ea, 'val 
l^tatur eaa. 

Dlveraae antaa rae dlveralaode Ipaaa ialtantur; et una- 
quaeque seeundun nropricai aodua euua, cua unlculqxte sit pro- 
priUB ease dlstinetua ab altera} et ideo ipsa divlna essentia, 
colntellectis divRrslB rroport5 onlboa rarua ad eaa, est Idas 
unluseul usque ral. 

Unde, eta slnt dlveraae reroa proporti onea , n aca a ae eat 
eaae pluroa Ideaa} et eat quldea una oanioa ex parts essen- 
tlaei sed pluralltaa Invanlttar ex parte d l vwra ana proporti- 
onoa creaturaruB ad Ipsaa," De Ver., 3, 2, c. 

7U. In T Gent., 35, 1, 1, c.| cf. Ibid ., 2, c.i 3, e,; De Ver.. 

?» 3, £.; Ii, c.; S.T.,"*!, 15, 1, c.j £.£7, I, UH ( post mediua ). 

75* "Selenduie antea quod ilia ratio, etel destniat exaaplarla 

separata a ''latone ;^OBita, non taaan raaovet dlvlnaa sclentiaa 

r ^-wfi ?«»*©« 

f • 




Jrp I*. - Jt 

,'s h«i «£ ,1 (B a 

£ o 



I • •»-«>*' )^r>>.^ ^T iFi^f jr. ^B" ^ 

.. . ! r ^( J*--, . >-i A# >-f ( rj'-r "I * ' '-*^ ■ '.' -.vfj ^» A' , .>* 

loiMt Putt n ^1 

esse rorua ondiai •m^OarMi. Cm cnlB r«s nstural^s natu. 
ralltmr InUadani aiBilitudines in raa avmrwXm ind«e«r«« 
oportat quod Ist* Intentio art all quod prlnclplttB dlrlf>ana 
redueatur, quod eat In flnaa ordlnana uwiyiodgoa. Et hoc 
■*^Bt «W9« nlal Intwllactua cu^iia ait cognoecara flnea 
oportlonaa rerua in flaaM. Ri ale lata alailltvde af> 
fafttnon •♦* eausaa natwralaa rerfucitnr, atcat In nrlwm 
TJrtndplwi, In IntalXaetai alSqaa*. H«b autaw opcrtat qnod 
in allquaa alias foraaa aaparataai oula ad alri 15 tudlnen 
praadletaa aufflclt praadlcta dlrectlo in flnav, qua Tlrtu- 
tas natural«»8 dlrlj^ntur a prlao Intellaetn," Tn T Mata ., 
15 IC 233J. 

76. St. Thooaa hinaalf aoratirea aarhaslz'^a thla; e.£. "mccwtea 
quod 'Tato, qal Inwanltur prlao locutus 'ulaao^da Idals, hob 
poault siatarlae prlnae aliquan ldean» quia Inae penabat 
Ideas ut eauaaa IdaatorvBi oatarla autaa :vlsa non erat eau- 
satum Irieaa, aad arat al eaaaa. Poanlt anla dvo prlnclpia 
ex parta aatariae, srlllcat aainiB ct Twrwin; sed uniia ax 
parta foraae, scilicet Idaazn. Ifoa autaa poaiawa aatarlaa 
agu^a:ta» 9999 a. 2*25 ^P'^<* rgcaasa est ponrra quod aliquo 
aodo s it eJMs idea In teo , cun guidquld a^ ioso cauaatur , 
aStlltudlnow ! rvalue uteuiaquB ratlnaat ,'Te Ver., 3, 5, c.; 
ci*. t-^,i,, Y, ri, 1, ad 3. 

"rijcandua, quod "^to non pormlt Ideas ainfalartu*, aed 
epaelwHui taataa; emiua dtxplax ftelt ratio.... ioa aataw 
paalMua nw aaae cauaai aingularls at quantaa ad rfomaa ct 
qiiantug ad aaterlaa . Ponlapa etiaa , qupd par dlvlnaa proYi » 
dentlaa daflntuntur ownlft alnkulai^ ; ei tdao oportai nos 
ainguiarlua ->onera ideas , ""^ ^W . , ~1 1 8, c. | cf. S.T,, I, 
15, '3, ad li. 

77. .■>•« Hota 70 abore. 

78. S.T., I, 15, 3, ad !i. 

79. 3.^., I, 15, 3, ad 3. 

80. See Not* 7? aboiw. 


• > 











■ •J 



sr;*'1t -^i;r ^'w. 

"•'.'■^ \" 









i -:■ 





?. •* t 


.i fc« .r , 

^ .dT 

• Oft 

: ^art II fit? 
hjipter VI 

;\PiiiR v^ 

1. "Poelto proomAo, In quo ostonllt Intentions huJuB net- 
•ntlae «t dlrmltatwi •! t«i«lauB, Inclpit proaequi aci- 
««tlMi prMfAtM," la 7 Mata ., h iC 69j. 

2. ■... at dlvldltur In du«B partM. Prl»o o«t«ndit q«ld ori- 
ar«a philoaophi da cauala mrua tradlderunt. ecundo fvrl- 
tataa hnjtw aelantlae Inclplt proMqtd. In — caodo llbro ,.. 
.." JMd . 

3. IMd . (r 70-71 i. 
I. ^ I Meta .. 10. 

5. In Weta. [5J. 

6. Tn '%ta . [?9j. 

7. !^«ptlor» «ay ba found t In Meta . [I9uj[l?5j. 

8. Tn T Heta., 10 ( pasal» ); but seo L?3j^ • C^^ c<m- 
TordaneT'of Arlatotle and FOato on thlc _-.;t ia alao atat«d 
<n Tn ne ^Iv . l^or. I8j *nd 15 ili^* i22« iHJll^J. 

9. In WtA . l2ji^]« 
10. In -^ata . t?3i. 

n. In Meta. I?lij[27jt66j. 

12*. In gata . (li8jl55JU33JU3UjU36jtl93j. 

13. In ^teta . I.U8J. 

Ih. In Mata. [5?J. 

15. In iteta. ll^-<j| In VTT ^eta., 7 if U?fli. 

16. Oaiior, 02.*H-., rx . 91-"?. Talgw ri^hUy ftrea«»a the 
iaagi native acheaata enoloorod in Platonic expoeltion; yat, 
back of theaa llaa a rational concapt'on. It ia to tMa 
latter that wn ara directing owr attention. 

17. In «eta. L50il$ljj saa Cbaptar VII. 


8jax# oi Ui. itl » 





^ M 
















• ;,<^ . J *i W-- «il 




• f 


•^W] .^_iil 


.Jftj 1 




•t *.^ (-«» «>«r-?'i«n 




. .^.x. ,^~aX 

•inr Vk^tqaiO c .fi'aV aX .TI 

« P»t II jUJ 


18. In I J^ta., 15 [C ?H-232j| cf. In ttoU. t7jt53Jl51*jU33J 


19. "SeUnduB aotm quod iUa ratio. Dial destnuit 9xamplMrim 
9«panita a T.atona poalt«, non taiaen r©>^Tet dlrlnaa ad- 
•ntlaa oaaa rcrua aMdtn anwplar—, r«B anla raa aatcra- 
l«a naturalitvr lnt«ncUat sl-llltudlnos in ree gweratas 
indae«rc, o->ort«t quod lata intantlo ad «Hq«Mr^ jrlnelpiua 
dlrigans reducator, quod eat in flntn ordinana tsmaquodqva. 
St hoe Bo« p«taat Mae nlai Intallaetiia eajua ait eog- 
■oacaro flnea et ->ronortl onen rorun In finer,, :;t ale ista 
aisllitudo effactuun ad caiiaas naturalea reducltur, slcut 
in prlarun prinoiplua. In Intelleetoa allquaa* loa «nit«« 
(^ortet quod in aliquaa aliaa famaa a^arataat quia «1 ai- 
lailitudinen praedietaa aufflclt praodieta dlrectio In riasa, 
qiiia Tirtutaa naturalao dlrlguntur a priao intallaetu," In I 
lata., 15 i^ ?13J. It aliould \je noted that thla la tha saaa 
argaaant which vas discuaaed in the previoua chaptar. 

21. S.7. t52Jl56j} In Heta . [7J. 

22. Injteta. [23i, 

23. Tbe best ezplanatian of Thoalstic "mdatentlaliaa" is to b* 

found in nilson. Being rtnd Sone '^loaophers . rhapter V, 
"ttelng and aadatenee," pp. 15ii-ia9. Cf. Salth, natural 
Theolopy , nn. 25-52; :<aritaln, Exiatance and the Kxlatent : 
Haalo, "'xlatantj alias and the Judgnsnt,'' Proeeedingi of 
tba Aaertcan Catholic Philosophical /.sseciat lon. Vol. XXI 

2ii. *Uade roeuenmt tȣ. ''latonicij honlnes abatraetua A hia ho- 
ld nibus, at ale daincepe usque ad ena at Movm et bonoa, qaod 
poeiierunt aiaanaa rerua vlrtutea,'* Do ^, (reat . ilij. 

25. Da V«r, il7j. 

26. laJJe Trln . l5j; ii.T. iSUj, 

27. In 1 ^nU , 6, 1, 1, c.i 19, 5, 1, ad 7| In 3. Pe Trln .. 5, 
3, c.; Cuodllb .. 9, 2, 3, c.j i..T.,T, S^T'lT ^1. 

ItaKiRJlC^ilTi , as^ ol .19 iiSCfi-ifS ^ '^^ ^ T .81 

r «. c - 



* X» C 4 I ■- ^ • *-_v - 

* .?x 

? .fS 


botfp (C 

1 .^S 

■— *— . t ' 

I Part n 6y» 
Gluipt«r VII 


1. The two principal works on the Rwerml topic of partlclpa- 
. tloB and ThowlsM ar« Oeissr, U ?ar ttclpntlon daaa la FM- 
l<«ophl« do a. 'ihaaaa D»A<min — d i abro. La Hoilona <bia - 
flalca dl P«rt»cii3aalonB aecondo b. Tomao ! 'Aquino . Both 
of tbasa hacv a much broiler scope than our prsaent iirvaa- 

?. S.T. (3l[56i, In ??9U. t50jll09i[lli7jU5l4jU55iLl69Jtl7Ui 


3. In Sant . l?2j; De Vir. in Oom. [li; Qiiocaib , t5j| !■ Meta . 
T98Tr3.i. l^jTrBTT^lj; ^ Oc«. Oper . Sat . Uj; C.^:. L23JI 
I« na S,""et ^. l5i. 

li. Da Var. Ll6j; i» An. U-ii UO. l9iaoj; -.j.. i56i[89Jj l9 
ft. In £«:;, Hi; In £o8t. Anal .ilj; In ■■eta . i.75j. 

5. Da Sg. Craat . U2j; ]« An. [7j| In U« An* iU6j; C.G. illjj 
|7t. tii9j; Coiip . 2h. Uj. 

6. In La Dlv . Now . llVj; 6,^. iV:;j; ^ ^ler . l7j. 

7. In Sant . [20j. 

8. S.T., T, 85, 2. 

9. Tm Sp. Croat . ix5jj i« kalo L5ji la i>e i^. tUlJi S»T, L52j 

10. In Mata . 17 j; 1-^:. l21ji2lij» S.T. L22ji72 jl7?i; !• Sub. J>a2. 
I5jf &.T. i31j7 " 

11. 3to vn Mata .. S if 1^62 j. 

12. Da Var . U7j. 

13* In Mata . lU9-50jf S.T., I, Bli, 1, c. 
U. In ?i«ata . I50j. 

15. In i^ent. l?Oj. 

16. "Praateraa, illv*d quod parti cipatur ab saae cujuallbat rei 
aat d» aaaantta eujuslibet rai. Seci, sicut dielt Diooyaiaa 
In rv cap. r>e dirin. nomln., parti cipati one alTinaa bonitatla 






fj .- 


lS?l .T.c tLl<i] .«* fS ft- 

•jjjs •i— .. — « 

t rtl 


•S. «^ 

V 1-. -,- 

<i« txfts 

■£fi5§ fli 

I Hi 







anlflft •! mmmm alia* rma wmttl, •! boaa* rait« Crfo iddatur 
qvod dlTlaa boaltaa sit aMvittia ea^tiBllbat aalBM. Sad 
dlTlna bonlta* eat ana asaantla. Etko aaaantia divlm ast 
ipaa aaaantia antaaa, Tal aliqvdd mSroB," In TI ^^ent., 17, 1, 
1, KTg. 6, 

17. "Vidaiur <}aad Daua ait aaae aanitB rrrrm par id quod dielt 
Diaagpiaa, IV oap« Caalaat. biar.t *Ea«a (jmAvm ast anpar- 
aaaa dlvinltatla.' Hoe eti«i idaa dicit, V eap. Da div. 
ncMB.t 'Tpaa ftcoa aat asaa axistantiboa,' Tn I SaBt ., 8, 1, 
2» •££• Ij cf, 3.T,, I, 3, 8, -arg , 1, 

18. 6,T. (56 J. 

19* FiTidaaaa haa alraadjr acemulatad throucrto thla a tad/ to show 
that tbo oppoalticn betwaaa tha tao eanaaa (formal and 
natarlal) of the Tlieorj of Ideaa and th* Yhooiatic pattern 
of eaaaaa ia baaic. blnca the rtlatlonataip bataaan God and 
creaturaa or batvaen tha Ideas as causae and tha aanaibiiia 
iavolvea a relationanip of prlBciplu n to prineipiatai 
(*r«u0 non potaat habere aliauaa ralatlenea ad bob, niai 
par Bodaa principii. In I Sent ., IP, 1, 5, aol,), that re- 
latlonehip vdll be explicated aaeordinc to the BMtar cauaal 
pattern. >'e have aaaa 6t» Theaaa propcelmt an arciawiit for 
diTine exMnplaritgr, baaad on tha caua&l pattern, aa a atib- 
atituia for tha Platonlo argwent (Tn I Meta .. IS (C ?33i). 
A aiailar arycuaant aVod at tbo ymry boglnrlm; of tha dla- 
cttaalon of God's kaoKladia in tha eo«n«ntary- on tha gawtenc^e 
(In I oent ., 35, 1, 1, e.). It reapnaara in the n* ¥ar « 
(2, 3, c.? 3, i, c.| 3,"?, c.). In the r.o. (i, 1,9 gad 5C) 

aad in the a—aa Thaologjaa (a.T., I, 1?,~1, e,f 2, c.). It 
ia oal^ b^ r*a<iing tha tmxtM taiather that tha pattern can 
be saaa aa conslatlng in tha nutaal invol-vaaant of forvally 
diatlsot cauaalitiae. 

"Bieeadia quod oane agaaa agit propter fiaaa} alioqoin 
ex actiona ai!«Btia mm sagia — qn a f a tur hoe quaa iUnd, niai 
a oaau. Eat atttei: idea finis ai^eatia at oationtia, inquantua 
httiaaaodif aad aUtar at alltarf vmm aaia at idea aat quod 
aitsea iateadit iapriaara, at qaad patiaoB lataadit racipera. 
dunt autei! qnaedaa quae sinul <«gunt et patiuntur, qxiae sunt 
agantia liq»arftacta) at hia c ouw a ii t quod atiaa in j ^a n da la* 
aliqoid aeqairare. Sad prlao ageotly qui eat agana 
nan eonvanit afrara p r op t e r aaqaleltlenea aliculua 
flalat aad iatan it solvi aoaaaaiearo auaa j>arfaetioneB,quae 
eat aiaa bonltaa* i^t tanmaaMiaa rraatura Intaodit eonaaqui 
aaaa perfeetionea, quae aat alailitudo p«*faetionl8 at baoi- 
tatia diTlnaa. ate ergo diYiaa bonit^ aat f5 aia 





' •^T^ «' 

tntsi , 




*' •" .71 


,x , - Hi "« n 

bru br. 


10l ittMUQjIfc (» 



.9^«ql99^ ^JtbaeJnt KW2^itq iMxip i9 ,e^. 

9t Pwi TI 6it6 
Chmptmr Til 

"Dicendua quod Ii«u8 est nriaa causa «x«>Bplarls o mA v m 
Ad e«l«* vTldantlaat 9mm\Awnaibm Mt quod ad pro- 
daetlonMi aliewius ral idao a aai — r l i aat a ^w i ^ i l a r , at 
effectua detamlnataa forMM eonaaqnatur; artifaz anlB pro- 
ducit datarmlnatam foraaa la aatarla, proptar aawolar ad 
quod inapicity alTa lllnd alt axaanlar ad quad axira i»- 
tuattir, Siva sit asssn^lar intarlua aenta eoneaptou Manl- 
faatuii aat autaa quod aa quaa oatnralitar flunt^ d a t ora i na- 
taa foraaa eonaaqaimtur. 8aac autaa faraanus dat^mlnatio 
oportot quod reducatuTf sieut in rrintni prlnciplur.. In dl- 
vinaa aapiantiaa, quaa ordlaan valTarai exeof^tavlt, qui in 
ramo dlatinetiona coneiatit. Bt Idaa oportat dlcare quod 
in dlTina sapiantla sunt ratlonaa oanlaa wnm, quaa supra 
diziwia idaas. Id aat formaa axaoplarae in oanta divlaa ax> 
latantaa, Oaaa quideo llcat afultiplicantur aaenadna re- 
spactua ad res, taaen non sunt roalitar aliud a dirlna es« 
aantia^ prout eiua siailitudo a dlTaraia psrticlpari potast 
dlwiralacda, die Iftitur ipsa Dana ast priataa asn: lar omA" 
«■• Poaaunt atlan in rab«a eraatla quaadas allonm 
plarla did, aeeundua qaad qaaadaa sunt ad alailltadlr 
allorum, yml aaemxhai aaadoa ap— isa, vel aaeandun a&alocia^ 
alieuiuB initatlonis," S.T., J, Ui, 3, e. 

"Sacunda Tia* qvaa eaT per aauaalltatemt aat haao. Osoa 
ania agana habet allquan 1* tantionan at deslderiua flnla. 
Qane autaa daalderioa finis p r aao c dit allnua cot^tio prae- 
stltuana flneo, at dirlRaas in finsn aa quaa aunt ad flaae. 
3ed in quibuadan lata eognitio non eat eonjuncta i;>si ten- 
danti in finan} unde oportet quod dirlgatur per aliquod 
prlna acana^ aleut aagitta tendlt in detamdnatuB locua par 
datana! natl onasi sat^ttantis; et itn est in cnslbaa quaa 
•Duat per nacesaitataa naturae} quia horua operatio est da-- 
tandnata per Intellectua aliquer instltuentaa natorasi| unda 
FkUaao'^hus, 17 Phyaic, dieit, quod opus naturae ^t opua 
intelli^entiae. In aliquibxia auten ista eognitio est con- 
juacta ioai a|>:anti, ut patet in aniaalibus) undo oporiat 
quod primn non a^at par nacaaaitaten naturae, quia ale non 
aaaat priauB, aad dirlf^eratur ab aliquo priori intellif^nte. 
Opertat ii^tur quod agat par intailartiai ft Toluntateni et 
Ita, quod ait intolll^ens at seians,'' Tn ^ _ent., 3?, 1, 1, 

"" "Raapondao, aiout dlelt Bamarduay Sam. IV super nant., 
n«ua aat ease onniua non aannntiale, sed causala. c;uod sic 
patat* iB^aniaua ania traa aodoa causae agentis. Scilicet 
cauaaa aequlToea afrente"*, rt hoc eat quando effertv;a non 
ijuimwilt oMi eauaa nac noclne noc rational sicut sol facit 
calorea qui non est calidus. Itea eauaan uniToea acaoton, 
unanrio affactua convanit in nonine et rati one cun causa, ai- 
evt iMBO ganarat hcadnon at ealor facit caloraD. Nautro la- 
toraa nodonm Haua a^t. Men unlvoca, quia nihil uniToea 
convanit cua ipao. Moa aaquivooa, eiai effectua et causa 


tn «% 



•-nk Bttnt ix>iR> ht 












^M A^l 

ecsio i«« •aii!«^aR Kotfo bcurp ^Stnkb «• 

Roa 9 



V f 



icit iw9t9 imuy!tJM% d«i vAims ana amm9 nao 


-al orftfudn 


■stafft ^*mr% TT 61? 
Chapter 7TI 

allqno aodo convMilant In noralno et ratlone, licet sMUOdoa 
crlus et !?oet«riu8; sleut Pmu axM saplmitla faelt noa aapl- 
ontes, Ita tanen quod saplcntla nostra a — par daflelt a 
rationa saplontlaa suae, sleut accldena a rations entla, 
aacw Ml t ai qaod eat In anbatantla, Unde est tartlua Dodoa 
eaoaaa a^ertls analocloa. Unrja patat q^iod dlvlnn aasa pro- 
duelt esse ereaturas In ainilltodine sui taparfectat at Ideo 
9m»m dlTlmn dldtvr 9»9» «Hiiiai raroB, a qvo oane eaae erea> 
toa effective at axsnolarltar Mmat," In I ent ., 8, 1, 2, 

"r>eleixhrr! antan quod Ilia ratio, etal daatruat exasplarla 
satvurata a Platona oaaita, mm taaan r«(»oTst dlTlnaa solan, 
tlaa ease rarua otmiiBB exaaplaran. Cut anla res naturales 
aaturallter Intendant slw^lltudlnes In ras genarataa Inclu- 
cmrcf oportat qtwd Ista Intantlo ad allquod pHnelplua dlrl- 
gans redunat^T, qtiod est ^n flnaa ordlnans xmonquodqua. ::t 
hoc non potest case nisi Intellaetas cajus sit eognoacara 
flnaa et proT>ortlcnem rarua in flnete« Ft ale Ista slallltudo 
effe«tTnvii ad causaa naturales redueltur, slcut In prima 
orlnclplua, 4n Intellaetua allq[iiaa. Hen actaa oportat quod 
In allquaa alias famaa saparataat aula ad slmllltudlnaB 
craedlctaa aufflclt praadleta dlrectio In finan, qua vlrtutes 
naturales dlrlguntur a prlao intollectu," In I Meta «, 1$ 
iC 233 J. 

It should be noted that these texts aova axaaiplarlty, 
finality and efficiency to an abaolutaly transeaodant and 
strictly neta^hyslcal plane. 

20. To I Sant ., 13, 1, ^, sol. 

21. TMd., 38, 1, 1, sol . 

22. rte Vor. (17 J. 

23. 2.2. S.T., T, 6, h, r.t ne Vor. [17j; ?1, h, ad 3l S.T,, I, 
1, B,"^ Ij In T ^en€ . , I?,"^ ?» £.J ad 1. 

2li. In Sent. (l6j| TV Ver. U8jj Pa Pot . l20jj S.T. [2^ii31i{,$B] 
IqIJj ne W^ lljl2ir3J. 

2$, De Vw. il8j| S.T. [58i[91J| ^ S£. Creat . ilTj. 

26. ^.T. [?liJ[?5JU8]. 

27. De Var., ?1, h, wj. 3. 



■m !ii 



•iTli .tegrjO fff p" 















Itoiast Pftri II "^8 
Chaptar VXX 

28. IMd .. ad 3, It la aigBlTlcantl^ indicatlra of the daralop- 
Mat of . t. Thorns* avarenaaa of PlatonlSH that vhan this 
4««u8tinlan t«xt ^peara In the conaentary on the I'entances . 
It ia ^iandled ■Ithout rsfaxwaBa to Plato J "PTaeteroa, alcnt 
aa habat bonitaa aci bona* ita a« habat varitas ad nura. Sed 
OHDla Bunt bona una boaitata. Uada Augnatlnua, lib, TTIT T>e 
Trlnit.t 'Honua est bow>, bona aat fadea, bonus art hoc et 
illtxi. Tolle hoc at illud, at Tldobls bonus ooBia bonl.* 
Uada vldatur qaod ait uaa bonitaa nuacro in onnibua parti ci- 
pata, aecondure quaa dicuntiir bona, irgo videtur quod alad- 
litar oania dicantur vera una varltate, quae eat Terltaa 
iacraaU," In I 5ant ., 19, S, 2, arg. 3; "Ad tertlua dicen- 
dua, quod alailltar dlco da bonitata, quod eat una bonitaa, 
qua alcut i;a-incipio effactlro exaaplari o^naia suat bona. 
Sad taaen bonitaa qua uauaquodqua foraaliter eat banun, di- 
veraa eat in divaraia. 5ad quia bonitaa vnlvaraalia non 
invanitur in allqua eraatura, ami particulata, at aecundua 
aliquidt idao dicit Aunvatinua, quod ai raaovaaaua obhm8 
retiones parti rulatiooia ab ipsa bonitate, reaacebit in in 
tellectu bonitaa Integra at plena, quae est bonitaa divlna, 
qaae Tidftur in bonitata creata sieut exesplar in ax^iplato," 
IMd., ad 3, 

29. In Oe Dlv. Now . il7j. 

30. laDe WLj, Noa. Ulii cl, l20j. 

31. In ^ _lv. iJo!-. . i3j: "lieinde, cua dicit: Lt vara laudatur ... 
excludit QUoruBdaa erroron . r'uerunt enia quidaa natcnici 
qui...." The error ia ajocluded preciael^'^ on the basis of 
tha littera ("Et ad hoc eancliidanrtua dicit...," Tn T-e ^v. 
Noa., 1, 3 LP lOOj) and in terms of causaliV and o? "od's 
alapUclty: "Et ad hoc excladerxlua, dicit quod Deus vero 
laudatur ut principalia subatantia osniuin, inquantua est 
principiua exiatandi ooaibus} et dicitur cauaa perfactiva 
oaaiuB, inquantids dat oaaea parfectionea rebus; et dicitur 
cauaa contentiYa, cuatodla et cibua, quao tria ad consorva- 
tionea rarua pertinare vldantur. Quaedaa aoia sunt quae non 
indigeat nisi ut ia auia prineipiia cooaervantur, quia ab 
eztariori aorruapi aea posauat, ut corpora coaleatia; et 
quantua ad hoc diolt qaad eat causa cor-tontiva, quia haac 
continet in aaaa. Quaadan vcro aunt quae, etal noo defici- 
ent ex auia priaeiplia, carruopi poaaunt ab extcriorl sicut 
aqva ab ifaa at quantua ad hoc dicit: ciutodia, quia haee 
defendiinttor a i^o, ne, praater ordinea aiiaa rationis, ab 
ill! a eannapaatur. Quaadaa autaa sunt quae ad sui conser- 
Yationen InHieent auppleaaniia, stent hoalnaa at aniralla 
olbia at quantua ad hoc dicit) clbiis, quia sc^licot oanibus 
adaiaiatrat ea quae aunt Qeces»aria ad axiaa conaenrationen. 

1, A ' V.H. '^ M ■ 








-lb :i 


m l 

. « 



•iUi . i •?« 

t .oe 


»' -> lo «• « 

Cr^dV « S 

■■'■■■ •■'• '■ 

i '( 

T i 

_.. .■ .■> 


,....,.. * . '. 

t»Bd AtStp -M 

t ' 

loUst Pitrt TI 6it9 
Chapter VTT 

Eat etlaa mt c«aaa cannr«ralT* ad ipsua, quia hoc Ipaioi 
^pMd raa ooovartuntur la Imm, daaldaraada Ipaaa aleat fl- 
Ma, aat ela a Deo. Et haac OMoia ooiivaali«t fiao onltlve, 
Idaat Boa aaaundua dlveraaa irlriutea, aed aacundua omb 
alaplicaa virtutenj et cuinuicabillter aagregate^qiiia ita 
••■■Hdaat all la oausalitalaa p«a«dl«taa» qnad taaan qui dan 
alna al nr ia moOua cauaaiKll saparatlm raaanet apud Eua." 
Ibid. [Uji "natora univeraana" la glTwa an Arlatotellaii 
■aanlng in explicit o]>paBition to tho poealble Platonic in- 
tarpratation. Ibid . [12 ji Matarla Is aaid to be without 
evil and in tl 5 s nion^iaa folloira Ariatotla rathar than 
FUto. Ibid , lllijt "DelBde* cob dlcltt Hon aataa... ax. 
cludH erroren quflrmiaB TlctordeanB...." Tha error la 
eaeludod bj tha llitara aad la a p pa aed by tiM aaity of tha 
firat eauar "^t oania nonlBa quae hie expoaontar dlelt 
praaaaaa aarao, •&— uniua Prlncipll ....*). IMd . il6j: 
Thla la a very lafHariant text f'or (1) It la inaartad aithoat 
linadlata raferapoe to tha littara ("ronaidaraadaa mtaa hia 
oacurrit, quod hlc dicatur per ae eaaa vel per ae vjta et 
haiaaaodl")} (?) it axplalna tha Platooia lotarpr«««tian| 
(3) It provldea a general rule (and thup haa a broad Bco^e, 
lo<dclJic baek» for aanapla, to tha ot?ianir<8e ncmwranndttal 
text [l5j) for t)M readinc of I/iocijralaa texta Iccludli^ ^SS. 
am Tita and the likai "Dionyaltia antaa in aliquo ela ranni 
^t et In aliquo dlasentiti coneentit quldea ciai ale in hoc 
quad i:K)nit Titan aaparataa par ae exiatentea at alnllitar 
aap^entian et 9»— et alia haiuenodl; riasentit autaa db 
ela In hao quod lata prlncipla separata non dloit eaaa diver. 
aa^ aed unuo pr^ ouocl st "*usi, aicut aupra dixit. 
Cub argo dieliur per aa vita, aecundua aantantlaa DIobtbII, 
dupllelter intelligl potaati imo aodo, aecundua quod per aa 
ii^poeXaX diacratioMHi vel aaparationee raalaa at ale par aa 
vita eat Ipaa Ijoms, Alio aodo, aaeunciua quod laportat dia- 
crationea val aeparationaa aolua aaaaadaa rationaa at ale 
par ae vita est quae inaat vivaatlbtta, qaae aon diatduguitiur 
a aa BPrtua ran, aed aaaandoai rationaa tantua a vivantibna. Lt 
aadaa ratio eat da !>er &• aaplentla et »lc de aliis) et ia- 
tan aacpoaitlooaa ponlt iaftra In 6° cap. Hie antes par aa 
vitaa aecaplt pro vita quae incat viiantibuat loquitur anla 
Ida da partlclpationlbua, vita autan par aa ajdataaa nan aat 
IMTtieipatjo." Ibid . L19j: Again, refarenoaa to texta of 
Diongralua hlmaalf are used to exclude tha Platonic vievt 
"S«d Ilonyslws^ elevi diasrat Heua eaaa eaaaaa totiua eaaa 
ooBBoniaj ita dixerat eua esse caaaae nroprlatatia unlua- 
QQlaaquej undo coraaquebatur ,uod In ipso ■ eo aaaant omiua 
ontluB aacaaplarla." The entire lectio Interpreta in coo- 
foraity with tie patt<^rn of the cauaea (cf. Ibid ., 5, 3 
i? 66^.666; 672 j) and concludea: ".,, aaat oer Ipaua, quia 
alallitudlnem r5ua habent aicut prlai azanpSaris et ab 'pao. 




• IP- . ■? 

rso ■ * " 

tt JO 

at i.»n 


f08t; Vfc v'^. a '-i,.ji'^!C"? J, ' '.^VL"''^ vv;-'.-: -'^rtf-i- : '.■.■ - v tB 

II ffer% II 650 

sleut a orlno actlvo Prlneiplo," ibid, IP 67"? J. IMd . 
120,1 "Dviada, cua dleltt Hoa «atra ... enlndlt 
IntallBetia. Ad c\ilus eriOmwtim solaadua ast quod FlAto- 
nlcl....' Th» «arror a^rala !■ B«ld to bo d»lib«r«telj re« 
>«Udi "Uoo argo axolMteM intMdffns, dicit qtuxi id...." 
TIM 6mtrim Uhmrimm rwta vm* afraln on th« tMltgr and 
causality of Ood. Ibid . l?2j| \be Sana oat tern la dlapla.^/ed 
tho -p briefly (£.£. apaln thua: "Sad ad hoc excluden- 

duc> :u-:/Blua oubdit qnod. •.•")• 

Although In all thaaa caaea St. ThoMS aaaa Dicnyaius 
"eacladlng a Platonic error. In no caa« doaa Tionyaliw hin- 
self Mention tbe Platonici or tha FOatoole background. The 
text of l^U Ytenaa idantifiea the oppoaltion and auppllaa the 
baekground. The eorrectiona turn on the absolute and alnple 
perfection of Ood and Hla relations hip to creatures throng^ 
efficiency, flnalltj and e3BS«>larlty. And in earfj eas« the 
corrective, or at least eXarifylng, Interpretation Is mipportad 
by a eltation fraa Pionarslus hiasalf. Tboa, tmder . t. ThoMU* 
interpretation, the i>e F/lTinis Mqidnibus beeosaa an explicitly 
aati-'^la tonic docuaeni proelsely on those poirta irtilch are 
central in tbia stady. 

Moreover, in th« Contra aentilea St. Tb(»as (rlres u» a 
clear warning againstlLbe dangers of bad Inteirretatlon and 
in a aai^le taott aets this Tsry pattern of cooDeent wMch im 
hvm verified In the eonnentary itself: "Hnle «at«B errori 
qaataer siuit <|uae Tidentur praestitisae fawntimi. Priaura 
eat TjuarunriaJ? auctorltatu* Intellectus perrarsns. Imrenltur 
•nlB a nonyaio dietos, rv cap* Gael. Ider. : Case onnlun est 
super-esaentlalla di-vlnltM. Vic quo intalligara Toluerunt 
ipauB esse fonaals oanluB raroa Dem aaaa, hod eonsiderantes 
hunc intellectum Ipais verbis conaomn ease non posse. Jtam 
si divinita* sat omiiui •bb9 tarmalef non erit super aBnia« 
sed inter onnia, Iodo aliquld oaniuB. Cua ergo dlTinitataa 
super oBnia dixit, oetendit aeoundun wxxmr naturax ab aanlbaa 
dlatlnctuiB at su-er omia collocatuxB. ix hoc varo quod di- 
xit quod dlTlnltaa eat m^f ontiiun, oetendit ouod a Deo in 
oMiibus quaedais divlni esse siadlltudo reperitur. -> 4unc 
atlaa eorai penrarsua iatallaetuoi alibi apart iua exeludena, 
dixit in IT cac. da Div, Nob., quod ipaiua Del naque tactua 
neque aliqua coniaixtio eat ad res alias, sleut eat puncti 
ad linsaai, iral flRurae aigilli ad earaa," £.0., I, 26. 

32. In Da Causis tU •* paaslM . 

33. Ibid. [3jtljl6it7jiej[9i[10jlnjU3JlllijU5ill6jll7ill9Jl20J 











1m m 




Bl^ o»(I « ic 





Votosi ^'art II 6^ 

3ii« "EasBnlun aut«a Yidstur pertinere ad eausaa fonules.... 
£ai autoB eonsiderandua in qulbus oaualm haae propoeltio 
habvat ▼ii^utam islc.j. Et si quldem ad gvnera cauaaruii 
quaeatlo refaratur, raanlfoBtuB ast quod habot verliatan in 
quollbet geitmre cauaaruai suo modo," (there follovs a care- 
rtil d«t«mlnatlon for each genua), In L. T>e raoaiaj 1 
(Pama, 71f^-719i. Cf. 16 iParwi, jlXii zFiParna, 753j. 

35. £..^. Tn ne faaaja (?j[11j(l6j[20j. 

36. y.g. ibjH ., ? [Panaa, 7?lj| 3 i.?*ma, 722; 723.; l [Parna, 
TTajT^l""-^, 7??| 730J: «) [?»anMi, 73*^j| 10 ["araa, 736| 
737jj 15 IParwn, 7fjl'j l6 (Panaa, 7Uii| 18 [Panea, 7ii6j| 19 
iP*»a, 7li7J. 

37. B,£. "SmI etlaa hoae prooasltio al non aaoe intelligator 
npugnat Terltati et sententiae 'j-latoteUs," ibid ., 3 
[F«r«w, 7?1J. "... rra«<licta nosltio ▼arltaton non habet 
et contrarl attar S'^ntaatlas Arlstotelia," ibid ., 5 I Parma, 
727i; cf, ? iParma, 7?lji 10 LParna, 7.36j; 13 LPa«a, Ihll; 
15 iPar«a, 7lj3]j 18 [Parr^a, 7hf]. 

38. Da Jvp. -r^^at ., 8, ad liij cf. S.v., T, H, 6, ad 1| 75, 5, c.; 

39. In Meta. l.'3jt9j. 

Ub. Saa Analytic Tndex i "Hijbo,* "S^Mratua.** 

Ja. In De niT. Rob, [ij, 

li2. In TJ2 CmislB [7j. 

13. Da Ver. Ll7j. 


■ s ^ • t \ ' . ^- 







I Pwrt n 65? 


1, "Utnai aniaa cognoscat corpora p«ar intallectua," S.T,, T, 
8U, 1. 

2. "Utn« anlaa p«r ••scntlaB suam eorporalla 1 nielli gat," 
iMd., 2. 

3. "Utrxm anlaa intelllgat aanla p«r apflcies alM natural! t«r 
Izxlitaa," IMd., 3. 

h» "Utrum speelaa Intelllplbiles affluant In anlnaa ab allqui- 
bos f orals separatls," ibid ., U. 

$, "UtruB mtAwm. intellect! Ta copnoocat r«e aaterlalea in rati- 
onlbtis aotemls," ibid ., 5. 

6. "Utnm IntollectiTa coRnitio acei-latur a rebua s-nslblli- 
bua," lbld ., 6. "UtruB IntallaetMS po>«lt actu intttllignr* 
per ap«eles intelllgibilea quas penes »e habet nan conrer- 
tendo se «1 phantamata," ibid ., 7. "'Jtru» iudiciua Intel- 
lectu* iapadlatur per HLgmSXam aanstts,* Ibid., 8, 

7. f}m quastions "l-e I<lals'' in the coBwntary on tt^e Sentancea 
(In 1 Sent ., yC, 2) and in the Susaa 'I'heologiae (S.T,, I, 
157 botSTcontain three articles, the first dealing with the 
existence of ideas, the second with their plurality, and the 
last with the question whether there are ideas of all things 
known by (>od, 

8. Ce \er ., 10, 6. 

9. Ibid ., 11, 1. 
ID. IMd ., 18, 7. 

II. Ibid., 19, 1. 
1?. C.G., II, 83. 

13. Q.U. J^ ^*t 15« 

III. !^ Ver., 10, 6, 

15. 3.T., I, 8b, 1. 

16. Ibid., 2. 

^XkV -i'i-ii^W 


.ri«ii al 

; *»»o 

,'■''- *■ 






^Itnt m 

.T ,. 

•- i»-_ 

< 'fc ^ ^'A-^ttftC fl(fU<P -iV^t**.-*./, 

**» * 4.MV *7 J. 





> ^-k. ■■« "^ -w *-» • ■ s* 

— — — 




- «a 


.1 «li 




.T ««X 

• •&M 


•X «<{1 



•C8 ,n 






•d ,Q£ ,« 

2*T 22 


.1 ,ti8 ,1 

' «*2-S 





It PMTt 17 6^3 

riMfytOT mi 

17. Ibid., "J. 

18» Tbifl ,, it. 

19. Ibid .. 7. 

20. Ibid .. 85, 1. 

21. Ibid .. 2. 

22. Particularly S.T., I, 8U, c.| 35, jd 1 et ad 2. 

23. S.T. L52jt53jl56jl65j| cf. In De Trln. l3iUj; In Meta. 
T3^ji7liJ| D« «£. Creat . [l^ 5 Urv TlrtaU . [iST. 

2li. S.T. [!r2jt62jl6fljt71j| cf. In 1>» An. UUl I^ ^. Craat . 
Tl'5i; Do M^ [5j. 

25. S.T. 165 j J ef. Pa -'er. [12 J f n« Sp. Craat . 112 j; In Po An. 

Tl43j. "" 

26. S.T, lU9i| Da Sg. Creat . Ll2j| Da to. L7jj In Ha An. tUBji 
c.a. Liij. 

27. S.T. ie.jU9j[56jL57jl58j[5PjL62jL69jt8ljl97ii Da Ver. Il2j; 
Tn %t* . I7jl7iij[75j; In tlth. llOj; In Phy . [ ^;"Tn He An. 
TIjT^ In Post . Anal.TlTT^j: r.u. Ilo7U7j; Da An. II6TF 
"-ig. Tb. [IJi De"3£l Croat . L17jT 1^ '^alo llOJ; ^ Vlr. in 

». ilJi Tn r>8 CatiaiB ilSj; De Sub . Sap . lli[22j. 



28. S.T. 156 J. 

29. 'V^r contaetWB-t C.O. (22j| In Da An. L22jj In MeU . UOOj. 

30. In Weta . [I99i. 

31. **.•• fanaaa intolllglbilaa alnt T>er ae axlatantaa, ad quaa 
cooparatur intelloctua poealbilis noater aicut apeculiui ad 

quaa vldentur in apaaulo,..." C.G. ilOj. 

32. ra An. il6jf C<mp , Th. Ujf C.O. lloJ. 

33. In Rth. [lOji In Poat. \nal . ilJf S.T. t59J. 

3li. S.T. H»9Ji'^j(58Jl59Jl62jl68jl6oj[70j[8lj(97Jj J2*|2»£S»**- 
I17ji Da Halo tlOJj Da An. U6j| Ha Vlr. in Con. ttjj In 
£th . LlOjj In fcfata . T200j| In Phy . L20j| In Poat . Anal . t5J| 
In Da Cauaia Ll5j. 

35. S.T. (56j| Pa Var. U2i. 


• t •« 

•-•l> i « ri ■ 


H>1 I y^ 







ni. • li 

• LOOS] .a^ ol ilSS] .flA ^ nl (ISS] .0.3 t 

♦~ t . n.. C f.'» i T,, ^, 

.iOI] .0.0 itii ^ , 

J ,'.■■% 

Twr" .^s 






.iSIl .251 ^ tide] .Tp2 .n 

ChaptMT Vni 

36. S.I. i56j. 

37. Th» PBlaiiooBidp !• <i«K:rib«l m on« of »iidJ.ltud« but with- 
out benaflt of an •ffldent o«u««. Th» theory i» |»r»ci»«ljr 
diaiiaguiAtMd m not having Uw "int«llif:entia ae.mrm" of 
ATlcenna. i>.]£, 1.^6 j. 

38. S.T. [56j; C.G. ilOj. 

I'^. 3.1. L55j| cf. TnSont. i5jl32j: £. Lli^- .J« U5j 

Ti?jU7j; 15 Vir. inTon. UjI j^ * Anal . .-.»-j| In b* 

liO. S.I. tpcjt69iL8lJt89jt97j| i;o V«r. U5j; JS? ^« l2 £«• ^liJ 
IiTDc An. I2^^jth2j; £e JVn. [167; In 'eta . [757; ' .^i. Ll6. 


Ul. S.T. i56ji89if Do Vor. il6ji In ^oot . Anal. ilJj In .iteta. 
T7'5j| ii An. UbJl'lTi. t9jllOJ. 

U2. S.T. taiji In 6oat . t32j; Da Vor. U6jj In i^U . i75i; In 
^"ad. U2ji G.O, UOj. 

Ii3. 3.T. t6lji69ji £« Vlr. in rpa. UJI In Foot. Anal, ilj. 

Uh» Cf, *i.^. ky7j. 

Ii5. S.i. t73j. 

1,6. S.T. [71 J. 

&?.* Sm Ooigor, 32.C11., PP. 106-110, for a ai»ilar rosuM Uut 
froM tha stanui>oint of partlcl }atlon. 

U8. J.T., I, Gii, 1, arg. Ij 2, ^g. 1; 5, arg. 3> 6, M^g. 1; 

tfg . 2| (i5, 7, arg. ll ^1 , 1» ^rg. Ij 2, arg. 1| hT^JL' 5; 
TO, 1, arg. 1| 3, arg. Ij srg. 3; 89, 7, arft- ^J HS« 2. 

U9. S.T., I, 8U, 2| $1 85, 6, 87, 3. 

50. "Dicondun quod vorbiai Augustinl oat IntelligOBdwi qoantui ad 
•a qulbua intalloctus cognoeeit, non autos quantua ad oa quae 
inteUeetas oognoacit. Cognoacit e >!■ corpora intoUigaodo, 
aed non per corpora, aoqu* par sladlltudlnea n)at«rialea et 
corporaaa, sod per epodaa Iwaatarialea et Intelllgibiles. 
qvao far aui eaa^itian in anina eaaa pooaaat," ^.^., I» 81i, 

I* S^ I. 

51. <S2nod autoa Auguatinua non aio intallanrit awaia cegnoael 
In rationibua aotamia, vel in in uu— u iaMli verltate, quasi 

Ail , » "i"J«J (^JJ* J •• • 


•i«U.4i.e M 

•idi^ . 


.lOIj - 

; .6€ 

.-■^r- „•. ,.,^ , -jr* -^- ,.- -■ rr^;^> 


tbij .K 


- . -"JW V « 

*•'•■■- r. « - -^ rf 

Hi U2TJ .»i* nl u^lJ .^^ 

•ili •i«<fA . lUi 

_. .Oii 


.' .It! 

^ .C*l 


I-'- T - -- 

loUat Hrt TT 655 


Ipsa* rmtlonaa a«t«ma« TldMUit(ir« oatot r>«r boe quod Ipsa 
dlelt iB llbro '-etcK. trlus. Ouaaat., qnod 'rationalla aitiaa 
nan onnls at quaecunqua, aad quaa aaneta at pijra fuarltf 
aaaarltur iUl rlaionl,* aellicat rationua aatamanaiy •bb9 
idOBBai alevt aaat anlaaa bonaroa,** ^^X** '• ^t ^» £• 

$?, "IdeaaitiB quad AugaatlMM Ibl Icxjultur aoeundoa opiolaaen 
iUaR qua .iliqid noauaruBt qvad dinaiBOia taabant corpcra na- 
tvralltar albi unita} a a e an d m vfoam paaltlaaaa, atlan pot«n- 
tiaa aanaltlTaa habmn poaaunt, ad quanm co(tnltlonea rm- 
qulrltvr datandaata dlat«iitl«« St banc oplnionaai aitiaai in 
aodas llbro AupiuatlouB a x pra aaa tan^it, lloat bane oetBlan«r 
■Bgla raeltando quan aaaarando tancAra Tideatur, ut oatet per 
•a quae dleit in libro Da CI Tit. al,» S.^^., T, 89, 7, ad ?. 

53. "Dlelt erila AupiaatiiMM In llbro rctofr. trlua Qaaast., quod 
'non aat ax)nactanda ainearltaa Taritatla a cor^^ys'la aanal. 
bua»* t^t hoe orobat duplleltar. Uno aodo, nar hoe quod 
*oane quod eorporeua a«iBu8 attinglt, alaa ulla Intaraiaal- 
aam tan oria eoaantAtiur; ... quod aatcm man aaaat, prrcjol 
BOO peteat.* Alio aodo, per hoc luod *«raila quaa oer coroua 
santlnua, etlan eun non adsiint aanslbua, laaglnaB toMa ao- 
raa patimnr) tat in aoaao val furore } noc autea aaaBlbaa die- 
aamara valaaua atroa loaa aanalbllla, val laaginas aonai 
falaaa sontlaKM* Nihil autce tierelpi notast ouod a faloo 
Boa dlaeamltur.' St ale eoneludlt quod non eat axpastanda 
vtrltaa a senalbua. Sed eoimitlo Intellactualla eat ^Bpra- 
hanalTa vorltatln. Hon areo eofmltlo intelleetual 1 a eat ex- 
paetanda a aanaibos," ^^l** ^» 8^* ^* arg . 1. 

51i. "Dlelt enia Aucnstinua, la Tt Solil. qnod *eerp«ra Intel* 
laeta eaaprahandl nan poaaoat; nee aliqixxl c o rp or a aa niai 
aanalbaa Tfdarl potaat.* Dleit etiaa, HI boper Oanaaia ad 
Lltt., quod Tlaio Intellactoalls eat eorua quae aaat par ea- 
aaotiaa auaa la aniaa. Huiusnodl autea non aaat o«irpora. 
Brgo anlaa rmr Intellactoi coi*pora cofpioeeara bob potest, 
S.I., I, 8ii, 1, arg. 1. 

55* "BatloBea aetarnaa nihil aliad auat quae ideae; dleit onia 
Auruatinus, in llbro OetoK. trlua Cuaaat., quod 'Ideae sunt 
rati ones at^llea raraa in aBnta diviaa 
ergo dieaiur quod anlaa latellaetlTa 
oaibua aoternia, redlbit opinio Platnnla. qui peauit 
aeiaatiM ab idaia dariwl»" ^-l** ^* ^t '>» HE* ^* 

56. "Dlelt en^B- Auffustinaa, in IX Da Trln.i • <ena Ipaa, sient 
aerporeartiB rama aotltlaa par aenana eoriioria eeliiidty ale 
iaeamoraarua raraa par aaaatipaaa.* Ualnaaodi aatar. aiat 
aubatanti aa iaaaterlalea. Ircro aeaa aubatantlae iBaataria- 
laa iBtanirlt," b.'i., I, 6d, 1, arg. 1. 

» X ■ 

-nd^toQ* , . ■sop 

„ , . • ■ j 

rraoolal!^ MIS A 

br . ■ .a. 

_ - f 

. ..1 


aa III . '• 

■ B« 

.i « ^tj» ti t 



afiw ^Jtoifo {•BobJ; lUu^p Jtum hirU« Xliflfl "* •<!? 

ia>:- -- • - 


Cliaptwr VTTT 

$7, "AufruBtlnuB dlrlt, XI7 Siipar Q«m«1» mi Lltt.t •!«• ••* 

fotanduw fuemrm allquld oorims !■ •t»lritu», tanquaa STAritus 
corporl faclenH mtmrimt Tlo* aabdatijri omri •iHb boHo 
furaMtantior •«! qui faolt, m r« d« qua ollould faelt.» 
Unde cnnclnrtit quod ivmr^rmm rwrporla non corro* In •plritu, 
Md lpe« sp1rltu» In e«lp«e faelt. Men err^o intollectualls 
eo?nltlo a scmslbus d^rlratur," S-l-j ^» 8^» ^t £££• ^* 

58. Da 8g. Craat. il7J. 

59, "Ad eulua oTldontla* eonaloarandtiB eat quod aopra aniaaa 
intallaotlTan huMnaa aaeassa ast pwwra aliquaa avparl- 
atmm Intallectun, a quo anlaa vlrtutan Intellipendl otti- 
naat. Smanar enln quod partiolpat allquld, at quod ast 
aobllo, et quod eat Iwparfactua, pia aw l glt anU aa all- 
quid quod eat rar aesantiaa auam talo at quod aat liaioblle 
at perfectuK. Aidaa aotaa buaana iatallaetiTa dlcltar par 
partlciTMitlonaa Intellaetttalla virtu tla, cuiua slcmuB aat, 
quod non tota aat Intollecti^, aad aaeuodiai allqaan mil 
gartaff. »^rtlnid.t atlan ac intolliKentia« varltatia cu» 
qnodaa fllscursu et notu arguendo. ;iabet etiam loparfactan 
iaUilLi (gentian, tu» o/iia non omla intalHsrtt, tvs quia i.n 
bis quaa latallij^t, da potantla prooadit mi aettm. Opor- 
tat ari?« aasa allquen altloraa IntellacUM, quo ariaa Iuipb- 
tor ad Intelllprandum. Poeuerunt erf^ q!i1d»i hunc Intel- 
lactUB aocunduB su^^wtanti am aaparatiai em— irt«lleetuB 
agantaa, qui quasi Uluatrando phantaaaata, facit aa Intel- 
llplbllla actu, — oed dato quod alt allquls tails Intol- 
laetw m^m aanaratua, nlhllonlnus taaar oportet pooara 

in ipM anina huaana allquai* vlrtutan ab lllo Intcllectu 
super! orl partlclpataa, per quaa aniaM husana facit intel- 
llglbilla in actu. Slcut et in allia rebua naturalibua 
perfect! 8, praoter uniTwsalea causaa agontas, sunt nropriae 
vlrtutes Indltae alngulla rebua •rfectlB, ab univaraalibus 
agantibw dariratMi son aala solus sol genarat hoalDea, aad 
eat in hordna vlrtua ganaratlva hcninia; at s5 alii tar in 
allia anlaalibus perfectls. Nihil autan eat oerfactlua In 
Inferior! bus rebua anlaa huaana. 'Onie or«ortet dicere r^uod 
In Ipsa sit allqua rlrtua dari-vata a au eriorl int*^llectu, 
per quaa poeait phantaaaata lllustrare. 

Et hoc experlaanto cotrnosciaua, dua pareipiaus nos ab- 
atrahere f ur Ma ualTeraalae a conditioalboa partioularlbiis , 
quod eat facere actu intelliplbllia. Nulla autaa actio cor- 
vanit allcui rel, nisi per allquod prlncipiua foraalitar a! 
iiriiaarenst ut surqra dlrtiai eat, eua da intalleetu potantiali '•>ro oportet virtutaa quae eat nrinciDlui huiua 
actionia, oaae aliquld In anlaa. rt idao ^ristotelaa coa- 
para^t IntoUectoa a<!antaa luaini, quod eat aliquld raeeptu!! 
in aare. ^ato auten intalleetua aeparatua iapriaantaa in 
aniaaa noatraa oonparaTlt aoli, ut Thaadatiua dieit in Coa- 
aantarlo TT7 T« An. 


Aiii ■Slt-.'^SZi- 






•&A *-; I'll i/l-iiKi'iiim • 

?wr% II 657 
Ch«pt«r VIJI 

8«d lntell«ctu8 ■•parati;^, saeundim noatrae fidvl docu- 
i, Mt ip«« Dvoa, qui aat ervator anlaa*, mt in quo solo 
b«atlficatur« at infra patablt. Thvie ab ipao anlna huaana 
Ivman Intellaetuala partieiiMt, aaeuixliBi lllud Psalxi irt 

•Sl{»TMtun est supnr -vjs luia^n vultua tui, '^ocdno,'" £.2,»» ^» 
79» i«t c. ; cf • Pa Sg. Craat . , 10, c , ~ 

60« "Quia taaaa praaWr luaaa iatallaetuala ir nooia axiKuntor 
species ltrt.*'lHf»ib51«8 a rebiis aeceptaa ad welentian da 
rabos natarlalibua habandanti idao non ver solan partlcipa- 
tionen rat'omr: aetommm '■'e r nuf? "^teHalAbus notitiaa 
hab—iaa, aieut Platoolei poaueruat quod sola idaama parti- 
dpatio s'jfflclt ad habere: -v.," Z'L' » " » "'^» ^» £• > 
"■DleandviD quod apaciaa iatallifibllea qoaa partleipat noeter 
Intallectus, rer^aeuntur sicut in primaa canaaa In aliqnod 
principiua per soaa esaantiaa intallifiibila, sdlieat in 
TieuB, Jod ab lllo principle proeedant nedianilbua fonda 
rerua sansiblllia et aaterialiuB, a qaibas aeientiaa colliKi« 
wjBf ut DionyaiuB dicit,' \~», T, fill, U» ad 1| cf. "e dp» 
Creat , [17 J I Pa An., 5, ad ^ 

61. ]>e ^. Croat . 117 j. It aa«M to us that Fabro (op.cit., 
p. ^) Biaraada tbe isipert of this text preclaely because 
ha has not placed it axlequately In the contextual and doc- 
trinal background. 

62. S.T., T, 8U, 5, e. 

63. ?enth*»y, "L'^nff-wtlnlsan ir«<o-^*»toniclen'' C-^cta rongreasua 
aeholaatici Internationalig . 19$1, pp. 633-639). 

T^ It tafi 

•I .... 

» ■ 


riit b» 

y. _ , * r^ ;.... 1. -^..^'^ 

,2. t^A «■ 


>o J. 2 «** t^V 


• ^mt 

-oofe bo* Xeifi»wti»3 wi^ nt liwcirpviiK 

•a «^ 



•qn ,X<V1 , 


It P«ri TT 6$e 
Chapter n 


1. In Sent . 1 3$ j | !>• Pot, (6 J | Da An. Iiil2jlhjll2j. 

2. IB Smt, i21j(30j| D» Pot. t5jl6jll7j| In »• An. t28J. 

3. De Pot. (5J| De Sg. Cr— t . I3jj C.G. t6ji7j. 

i*. S.T. i39jiliOjj Eg Un. Infll . I6ii7j| In S. Pnnll l2j, 

5- to Sent. Il$j[l0ij De Pgt. i^j, re 8g. Creat . t3j| In S. 
WPU 12J| C.^. i6jT7J; a.l. I38j; De Un. InteU . t^.' 

6. foSent. £l5j(21j(29j£30jj De Pot. U7j; De Sp. Croat . (3j; 
]S An. Ujlllijj In D* An. HUji £.0. t6j;~De 6ub7"s5^.aj. 

7. InSjnt. t21j(?8i(29Jl30it De Pot. t?JU7i| 15e (Vn. Ilji 
C.G. I6jil9js 1^ Un. iBtell . (TTiilu 

8. In iiejA. i21Ji29j} l>e Pot. [1?,; C. -. U9j| "« Un. TntoU . 


9. In Sent . £l^jt35jj He n£. Creet . (lOj; r* \n, tllij} Tn le 

An.THiji c.<i. t6jt"ff7; a.VrT35jU3jtiii*iri4B7ll7j; De~Unr' 
Intell . ilj. 

10. Tn .Sent . i23jj V>e Pot. (6j| De An. t2J| In a. p«u11 t3j| in 
De An. i33jj £.0. II^j. The general arguaont for IjamortalTtj 
tume on the 8eir««ioveaeot of the soulj see C.O. tliijtl5j. 

^' ^P -^"t . L23j[3?ij re Pot. l?jl6j| In S, Ht.Uji C.O. U3J 
Iirni9Ji25j> De On. toGu. Uj. "" *" 

12. De Ver. USii In I/eta . U87j; C.Q. tl8jU9j. 

13. Thns especially Orlgen; see C.G. il$j. 

Hi. ''Mceadua quod etai foraa dob sit propter aateriaBf sed po- 
ti ue w nterla propt«r forwHii ex forma, oportet rat5oan ac- 
elpaape quare nateria alt talis, ot ncn e converso. Aniaa 
antaa Intellaetlva, aicnt supra habitua est, seeuadva nat«. 
ran erdiaeB, iBfin^a gradtm in subatantils Intelleetuallbna 
tenet; Intent lai quod non habet natural! ter albl indltaa no- 
tltlaa ^erltatle, aicut am^sli, sed oportet quod ean coUl- 
gat ex rebua dlvlalblllbue ner rlaa smmua, nt Monyslua 
dlelt, VII cap. De llv. Nob. Nature anteB null! deeat In 
nseeeaarlia; unde oportult quod aniaa IniellectlTa non aoliai 


•isxjuiisjixi . i .1 


j!f "^ sb 

lexj •2.2 u«*l«£E -8 Hi .' — ' '^'^ '"' ^ " "I '^ 

•i^XKAl] .0.3 ikTSXi . •^»» Bl li^Xi .2sv ^ .SIX 

.L^jLi .0.2 ••« loaalrC xXIaImitw atufT .tX 

~oq b»H „ oiiX 

Site sm at mcomri 

n tart II u5y 
Cliapt«r U 

hab«r«t TlrtuUa lnt«lll|[eiidl, s«d eUaa virtuien Mtitl- 
«ndl. Actio aut«n s«nsu0 non fit sina corporvo ioBtmi- 
■anto. QportvLt Igltvr mtimm iaUUeetlVM CMrporl uniri, 
qiwd poMit ••■• aoav«iiM» (urmiM Mneus. Obom autaa 
•111 aensus fandantor supra tactoa. Ad crgaaua autsa tac- 
tMa raquirltur quod ait aadiua intar contrarla quaa aunt 
ealldtti at frigidua, huaidua at aieeua, et aiailiaj quantn 
aat taetua apprabanai^aiaj sic anin eat in potentia ad con- 
trarla, et noteat aa aantira. Unda quanta organua taetua 
fuarit macia rediictua ad aaqualitateo coiqjlaxiaDla, tanto 
parcaptibillor Mrit taetus. AaIih aatea intallaotlTa habet 
aaaplatissiae vtrtutaa aanaltl vani <|Mia <iuod aat inf arlorla 
praiaaxiatit nerfactlus In auperlorl, ut diolt Diooyaiua In 
libra l^e T/lv. Non. Unda o<<ortuit coi*pua cul unitur anina 
intellectivay esse corprua mlxtuBy intar oofila alia nagla 
radaatm ad aaqualitatea coaplsxlonia. -> Et proptar hoe 
hona inter omnia aninalia aelloria aat taetua. Et inter 
Ipaaa boalMa, qui aunt nalioria taetua « aoni aalioria in- 
tallaetua. Culua aigmai eat, quod *aollee eart» bana aptoa 
annte vldamia,' ut dlcitur in IT l« An.," S.i,, I, 76, 5, 
O.J cf . Q.U, Da An., 0, c. ""* 

15. la Pa An. i2Sj. 

16. Tn Do C. et M.U7J. 

17. "Majdna avtan Tidetur caarom aaaa aaaaaaariua anisM intal- 
lacti^raa ad elua prapriaa oparatlaaaa qoaa aat lntallicera« " 

S»T. , I, 81j, li, c« 

IB. Saa Sou Ih above. 

19. 3,1. t$6j. 

20. S.T. i37ii38jafij£$9Ji la ^ant. i3$ji36jj C.O. [ihn In De 
Aa. i33j; Pa An. i,15j. The i«Baleriality of'senae knaalaiga 
laada to tha iEesia that the soula of animala are likeviae 
ianKtrtal) see S.T. t37jj De An. U9i; In ftj^. i30j| C.O. i6j 

21. In :>ant . i5j. 

22. Da An. Il6j« 

23. Ih U An. L28j, 
2li. S.T. t56j. 

25. S.T. i62j. 

^ XI t 


t. A. 

a. r r_ v— .. & _^» A. , j^ — ».. i -■ v . J 





^ r"^>',;^.tJk''J ■' ' .'';■- «»">• "ip^-u'h. k^vv; 

•a sT ..di) ..^,n 


1 •! 







.Id^i .£.8 





X i. 







•1 -^^s 

.4 .55 

II tart II 660 

26. 8.T, U3.iUiijii*5j| fij An. ilixit l± §£. ., 2, c.j 3» c. 

27. D* Aa. ilhii D« S£. Crvoi., 3* c. In this latter t«xt the 
iEtory ia «xplleltly raiated toTtha irla ?latoniea < 

28. In Da An. UJi6jt7j. 

29. S.T. U5J) Da S£. Great,, 2, c. 

30. S.T. ih7j. 

31. In Sant. L35j; In Port. Anal . i9j| De A». i2iil9Ji30jt In 
pSy . U9ii31j| Tn Mela . Tl9^j| In De An. l7jUOjU6jlii^ 
Is ^ ^auals tl^; C.G. i6j, 

32. In Sent . [3$J! £.0. I6j. 

33. There are aeveral apparently pertinent aariea of texte. A 
cwen text in which faraa are aaid to be (ivan to natter 
by tiM "Dator ' ia rapaatad In a tambvr of abjeeUewi tkia 
ia a a took preaantatioa of a difficolty concamlag itia 99^-^ 
plate liberality of grace. (E.£. In ^ent . i25j| Om An» t9J; 
cf. In aent . iki} De pot . [7j; De An. LUj. There ia also a 
series depending orir-inally on a text of i^Terroea (In :'ent . 
i??j) in which Plato and ATloanna are grouped togetEer aa 
haJi/Ung that aubatantial forw in natter are eaosad ty sepa- 
rated foraa. In all but one of tiinee taxta Plato*a Tbaory 
of Tdaaa ia contnaated wi^ the fator fgraary of ArLcenna, 
and in the later texta, aapeeially In fa.T. L7tj, ahowa tlw 
influence of the Maiaphyiica . The one exception ia De Pot. 
iki where the later x'orwania is attributed to Plato. ilaS 
toBct atands alone; eiran in Pa Pot . il5: the distinction ^a 
■Blatainad: "... quod foraaa in nateria aint a foraia sine 
aataria, aaeuadUB aaoteBtlaM Platonia^ val a datorc foma- 
ruBi, aecmdiOB sententlaa Avleaanaa.*' 

3li. K.£. S.T. ili2j. 

35. t.£. ^.T. Ilt6j. 

36. "Llcandiai quod na eo aae eat dicere qood intellectual qui eat 
ijitellectualis oparatioale prineipiua, ait btiaani eorporia 
foraa. Illud enia quo prino aliquid opcratur, eat fcraa 
eius eui operatio attrlbuitur; aicut quo prtao aaoatur cor- 
pua, est aanitas, at quo priao acit ani-ia, eat acientiai 
and* saoitaa eat feraa eorporia > et adentla aniaae. Ft 
faulus ratio eat^ quia nihil aRit nial acnnindua qaed eat 
actu; oada quo aliquid est aetu, eo afit, Uaoifaataa eat 
antea quod nrlaaa qao ocrpNa wlvit, eat aniaa. Lt cua vita 
aanifeatetur ■ineiriMa di^mraaa operationea in divaraia 

n ■ 


. " ' ' '' 1 


io oTT<irfl lo M»/ « no vi 

. 1 


•nla alwl « iais &M»i.' .not bovp ••«" 



;?? ..... .. ..-.v^. ... .. .. 

II Part II 661 
CbsptM* U 

fradibuB rlvpnt^un. Id quo prlao op«mar unuaquodqm 
opsruB Titaa, •■! aal«a| anlaa aala «•! r>rljKui quo nutrlnur, 
•t santlmiB, •! wawmar Bmmnt/imm loevai et •inlliWr quo 
prlao intellif^iBia. Hoc ori?o prinelpiun quo prlao Intolll- 
glnaa, mire dicatur inrtellootua tii'va anim intollaetlva, oat 
tmrnm eorporia," S.T., I, 76, 1, o.f "Prlao quidao, quia 
anlMal nan osaei aiaplieittfr unuai^ euiva aBaant *-*ti* plu< 
raa. Nihil onia oat aiapllcitar unua rriai per foraaa uaaa» 
par qoaa hdbat raa eaaa) ab oodt 1 enln :>abet roe quoo alt 
ana, at quod ait vnai at idoo aa qoaa danoajwantur « dlvar- 
sla fortaia, non avnt umat ainpllcitar, slcut hoao albua. 
Si igitur haao ab alia foraa habarat quod ait Ti-nm, aelll- 
e«t ab aidna TeMtabili; at ab alia fonaa quod ait anlaal, 
aeilicat ab anlM aaaalbUif at ab alia quod ait boM, aei- 
licet ab aniBa ratlonali; sequeretur quod hooto non esaat 
uaua alBolielter; alcut et Aristotelaa arguaentatur eortra 
<>latonaa in Till Uatapb.^ qnad ai alia e&aet idea aalBalis, 
et alia bipadla, non aaaat uaua aiispllcitar aniaal bipas. 
Kt propter hoc. In I Do An., contra ponontaa dlvaraaa anl- 
aaa ia c ar pot a inquirlt quid eontlneat illas, Idaat quid 
faeiat ex els umm. " t non -.■•oteat dlcl quo(5 uniantur per 
e«pporls unitaten, quia nanria aniaa continet cotdtis, et 
facit IpsuB ffsee unin, qua-r n ranvf»r3o," ^.T., I, 76, 3, c; 
cf. Ibid., It, £,} 5, £.; 7, c. ■" 

37. "Sed quia aniraa unltur corporl ut feraa, naeeaao eat..,," 
l»3L»f ^1 76, 8, £.j "Si vero aniaa ttnitur corporl ut foraa 
7.7 iaroesiblle eat...," ibid ., 7, c.; "Sed si aniaa Intel- 
lectlTa unitor ror-orl ut forrBa ...""iT^xiOOibUe eat...," 
ibid ., 6, e.) Tlcendua quod cm foraa non ait propter aa* 
ten an," iMd., 5, c; "Sed el anlna iutallecti^ unltur 
eorpori nt f om ..7 i^joaaiblle eat...," ibid ., h, c.j 
"Sad al rxxtasva anlaaa eoroorl unlrl slcut"7o™aa...7" Ibid , , 
3, c. Thus all tbeae articled are reduced to the conclu- 
sion of S.T., T, 76, 1, wiiereln the opcrutional unity of aaa 
la tba central arguaent. 

3fl. This ia the preclae defenaa of the ai^uaent of .S.T., I, 76, 
1, e., against latot "Cua i|:itur diciaua bocratoa aut Pla- 
toani intelligare, aanireatua est quod non attribuitur ei 
ip«p accldansj attr^ " - enlo oi inquantna eat .oao, quod 
aaaaMtlallter praad da Ipao. Ant argo oportat dioare 
quod Soeratea intelllrd-t seeundua ae totin, aiant Plato 
poeuit dieana boaiaea eaae ani'taa intalleetivan; aut oportet 
dieera quod intcllactua sit all qua pars Socratls. Lt prisua 
quldan atare non T^otast, ut supra oetansua est, propter hoc 
quod 1r«e *d«- hoao eat qui jiorclpit se intelligera at sen- 
tire; sentire autoa non eat sine oerpers) nnda oportat eor- 
pus aliquaa eaaa hoaliila partaa. Rellnquitur ergo quod in- 
tallaetva quo Socrates Intalllglt, eat aliqua para :>ocratis{ 
Ita quod intellectua aliqao aodo corporl ocratis unlatxir." 

11 1 


t — ; » 


-ii i 

-to a 


. .. r 

'It.' r 



- 109 ^fKHoqo abrtir rtnoctao ants ^en f«n «^ i 

*.Ttf^6Jtiur mtissnoo^. IncfioQ otiow oupilK sEr-t9«II»^nt bo«p A*i 


It «iri TT 662 

5». 3.T., I, 76, 8, c.; cf. 3.T. U3jllilijlii5i. 
IK)* ^'Z** ^» ^^ ' ^' ^•- ''"'* frohswonant note. 

si . hoc qulilaa 3U£tjn<;»r- ro^sei-^ si ponex^tjr 

q«o«! aidaae sensltiTks overall o (»M«t el us propria sino 
corptv T, 7? ■ ' ''tet dlcer« quvi 

Secra llj?lt c. . , _ _l Plato pocuit 

dlcens hor^lrwa vss* anlaaa intelloetlvanf cot or«rtet dicerc 
qiDod ' ■■-■rt'ja alt alfqua pars ;5ocratiB, ^.t prirua qulder- 
•tar« itest, ut supra oatensun est, raropter hoc quod 

lp»6 IdoT hoDo obX, qui perdpH o« Intelllrore et sentlre; 
wmfeirv antfMi bmi sat aloe cor pore; unda onortot corpus all- 
qaam eaec btalnla partan. ^ellnq dtur «rfi;o qiiod ir.tellectus 
*• qno ^ocratss 1nt#lilgit, est alloua pars ;>ocr«tia| ita quod 
int«llectus aliquo aodo eorporl ^orratls unlatar," Ibid,, 
76, 1, c. 

U2k S«e lioiea 2ii and 36 abore. 

ii3. S«« the Analytic Tnde:t t »Anlaa," Tor^ori mitvr." 




lotMt Piart IT 663 
Ch«|ii«r X 
•Mtlon 1 


1. Da Pot,, ), $1 6, 6} D« Sp. Crsat . , ?, c; £• Sob , &•£•» 1 
III-7j; In 11 ne r. ot M.7U"Ts~53U j . 

2. Dm bub, S«T . ili. 

Section 1 

1. In TT Sent ., 1, 2 (cf. ?;£ Tot., 3, 5); In TI oant ,, 8, 1 
Tcf, I'e 'Ot . , 6, 6| ]> S p . Croat ., S, r,j Tje Sub . .'Cp ,, 1 
U-7iT| Is TI Sent . , 37, iTTTcf. De'Pot., 3, 5). 

2. lis Wt. Horn., 13, 2-3 IP 36?-363| 366-367). 

3. "••• quod CUM omvls nultltudo procedat ab onltate aliqaa, 
«t dlelt lAcayslvaf opaeXet uniTsrsltatls nultltudlnsa ad 
ttOUB prlncipiun entlun {irlnuH reduci, <iuod est Dens," In 
I ijont ,, 2g 1, 1, sol. 

U, "Uade at Plato dixit quod neoesse est ante oaaMi ■oltltu- 
dinea pottere unltatea," S,T. U^i* 

5, "DleenduB, quoti cammadB intentlo emaivm fult redueere aul- 
tltudlneiB in unitates, et Tarietatea in unlfondtatea, se- 
eundoi quod i oasibilo est," De Ver., ^, 9« c, la the eiA- 
••quent dlscuaaion ^>t. Thomas Introduces by nas« the antlgul 
naturales , the Platonlci, and .'«vicenna. 

6, **,,. unde, eoH e— e et rellguae T>«rfectlon>ee et for—te in- 
venlantur in comoribua ... oportet praeexistere aliquaa 
TObstantlaa ineorporaaai quae mm partleolarlter eed emt qua- 
daa onitwrsali plenitudina pe«^actlone» e— ndl in se habe- 
at," De Pot. 119 J. 

7, "OiKto ^ato sufnelentiori via proe — I t ad opinicuaB ... 
ev: :n .., noeuit.... Unde Plato ... pooebat ... etc.," 

T-e I v... . . ep . 11 J. 

8, Ibid. 

9, "Hujus aute* posltionia radix inrvenitur effioaciaa non ha- 
bere. Hon enln neoesse eat ut ea quae intellectus separatle 
inteUiglt, separatia ease in rerua aatura,' De sub . >>ep . ilj, 

IH II &%Mfi tnoi«% 

-X»s »; iiiA mattaao 

siiv Awsa'x^ a»o 


yjifc 4 


"I .s 

r(^' ,f X ,x ,u ,.i J 

*»._ _j»_ . > _'.. A._t- ^i>. 4( kr.. _ ■ ■ '.. - M 

gl **,«M<a #•• hoop ,f;>ci!>«n bi: 

»T y^a «* «J. »J ••ii 



• l'.^ 


• .• JO ha iiM9»r]orui «lv Jbr 

• vXj •n»o «o'. 









Chaptor X 
&«ction 1; 2 

10. C.G. [21 J. 

U. Cij v«r. ilOj. 

^^» 5s ^« ^« i-lil !■• Sp. ';y*i . l7j| rx llale UJ; (>Tr 

i»|Tlication) b,^, L7^7l (jy laplication, cf. In t« Piv , 

«■•, n, U iV3l-933j), In j;« ujn, jUm , ilj»"TjaT« 
vmiB i3ji7i{ In M»ta « U2j aay b« ioeludad hars •iaee 
ih« ■' iTtiory of Tuvaji Includas ■•purmted sub«tano«a« 

13. !>• >Sttb. .'^- . .^,^ ^_w _ . ' '-«at. iljj In Do C«jm1« t3jt7j| 
Xn Do 2_ij^. ___. iij. xaiooic arguzMnt ttius baeoMS 

A fwrt— anWl baekgruuud wttiob can ba conatiintly precup> 
p— d and referred to. 

Hi. ^mU i52jl62jt63it61ij. 

15« SijMM St. Tbgaaas kiMself has ao reduced iham in Jn ^ta« 

112 J : "Patet ante* diliicentl intueoti ratiooee Plaienia . . . . " 

16. As in Dm Var. il7j. 

17. f^ In S.T. hj and [iflj. 

18. Aa in lie Jub. w>ap « il^jj In lia . iy « Uo^» tl7i. 

Section 2 

1. Da Civ. rel, X, 23 V^.i 2U Uj» 28 tcjj 29 [^i| Conf., VTT, 

2. In Sob. »cip .. I, 6, 6 U ii86j| 20 U I8flj| li*, S-6 tE $26^ 
15 ir":^30j; 17, U-13 U 51*2 J. 

3. Intro , a^ Tbaologiaa. 1 iPL 176, lQ12.10l3jt cf. Robert de 
»n, i^entRntie, I, 2, 3 iVartin, 29l*-2/^j. 

li. AXbArtua Ua«iiua, In I Sent .. 3, i , l£ 12 2^, U3i; &U Bona- 
venture, l£ I ^^ant. , 3, 1» H 4^ I, iS^ll n lialaa, ^ne, Th., 
iT. Intro . . 2,~TTi I, 10-19 i. 

5. In bant. i2j. 

6. Da ^mr. U3ji In De Trln . LlJl2j} C.C. l32if In S. PatOl 

I^iTlk Pot . U9j; 3.7. 4.1^-17 ii laT. Jo. tlj. ~ 

7. All except Le Pot . il9J. 

S i 

.iOij .IfVaE '^ 

T*^ tliU 'sfe" ?^ rr^) ..*«-^'.''l: *^ -{l} ,«<*? ,(<if» «q ,fiX 

itT) -i^^ wT ?l- 'T> .ff* Vt ?UJ ,f^'- ,fhf^:^ .CI 



> mi Al 

j,ds5 3j d-5 ,Ac i;e 

a .i tS 


i 21 

• S 




.iSi . : .5 

tXim'? .e «I jLStj .0.3 uSjUi .flitT •<] fll fi.Fl) .^a.' ol .d 

It Fivt IT 66$ 
Cbaptar Z 

8, In 3>nt . 12J| l>« Ver. (I3j| »• -ot . ll9J. 

9. "Par hoc •tlaa axeluduntur «rTcrm phllMooborua. Qaidaa 
•Rl« pMloaophorun antlqul, seHleat naturales, pofMbant, 
■■Kha noa ax aUqoo intelltctu, neque oar aliqu«i ratdonet, 
••d a cass fulssat at Idao a nrinclplo rationaa son poaue- 
runt aau Intalleetua aliqoam oauaaa r9rvm, aad solaa aateri - 
am naitantaoi, utpota athaaos, aleat beaoerltus po««lt» at 
alia hu.tonMdl orlaoipia aatarlalia, ut alll t oavwnmt. 
Centra hoe aat quod e^aacallata dieltt In prlnciplo arat 
Vartaa, a quo raa aellleat Drlnciplun suipaerunty at son a 
cam. Plato autaa poault ratloaae oaalua rwraa factarua 
subalstentaa senaratas In proprlls natarla, par quaroa par- 
tial patlomB raa aatarlalos aaaoati puta par ratioaaa 
boiinia saparataa, quaa dlcabat par ao honlnaB, habarant 
quod 85 nt hon'nea. Sic erRo na hane ratlonen, par quaa 
oania facta aunt, IntolllRas ratlones aaoaratas a I'«o, ut 
Plato ponabat, addlt ▼angallatat ht V«rboDB arat auud r«u!a. 
Alll atiaa Platonlci, nt ChrTSoatoaua refort, ponabant 
Daun ^tran ealnantlsaiaun, at prlitua, sub quo ponabant 

l.i aaataa ouaadaa, in q«a dlaabaat aasa alallitudiaaa at idaas 
oanlun rama, ' In ^« Jo. ilj« 

10, "Tertla autew ratio potest sunl ad hoc ex sentantils Plato- 
nlcortta; ooortet enln ant« esaa detaminatua et parti eula- 
taa, prammxieiMrm all quid non partieulatuai sieut ai ignia 
aatara partlcularltar at quodaanodo partlcipatl-«e invenitur 
In forro, oportat prlus Invaniri Ignaaa naturan in eo quod 
eat par aa— ntlaa ifnaAai vada, rxm aaaa at rallquaa par* 
factionaa «^ foraaa iBraalantur in rorporibua quasi parti - 
eularlter, oar hoe qood aunt in oatarla ra o a pta a, ooortet 
praaazlatara aliquaa aidMtaatlaa Ineorpcraaay qaaa aan par- 
tianlariter, sad oua quadan unlvaraali plenltudlna perfect! - 
oaaa aasendl In se habeat.... 

lis oplnlonlbua abjeetis, FlAto et Arlstotaloa poauarunt 
aliquas substantlaB essa Ineorporeaa; et eartai quasdaa esse 
corpori ccm.lunctasy qnasdan varo nulli eorpori ccn^uactas. 
Plato naraqua poault duas suba .antiaa aaparatas, seilioet 
Dana patraa totius unlTeraitatie la supraao gradu) at post- 
■odua aantaa Ipsiua, qaaa vocabat natemuB Intellactua, In 
qua erant rarua oaniua ratlones val ideae, ut Uaerobiuis 
narrat, aubatantlaa autaa incorporaaa eorporibaa anltaa 
poaabat aiiltlplicesi quasdaa quldea conjunctaa eaeleatlbus 
corporibus, qaaa Platonlcl deoa appallabanti qnasdiM antaa 
conjunctaa corporlbus aerels^ quaa dlcpbant esse daeaones. 
Unrie \u<nisHnue ^n VTIi de Civ, l>el Intro^ucit hanc deflnl- 
tionaa daaaonua ab Apulejo dataat r^aaaonaa aunt anlaalia 
aenta rat)onalia, anino passlTs, corpera aerva, taapore 
aetoma. Et oanlbus praadictis subatantiis Ineorpcrels 
ratlona auaa aaapitemitatis frentlles Platonlcl dlaabaat 

?te n 4-. 

nsotsC mmir$Ni'v>9a£JUh tmrrtf> Jtaxi aail#* sect tan* *9 

«-' -- 


a < 

J. . . J 

-^. . , 1 

-i^oelioq ttalbuhlttiAlq HMttrntBOi flBtaffp aw9 !»»• , i 

..ip mis* i* laMTKK -:> 

' 1 

' T 

P»t II 666 
>l 3 

eultua divinitatlB •xhlbowka. Potwbant •tian ult«rlu« 
avbatantlas liie«rpar«as urmmioribum i» ' i— oorporlbus 
UBltas, t«rr«ai8 scilicet «t aquela, quae aant aniMw Ih>« 
mUttm at alloriM aalxaliuM, Arlatotclaa aulaD In daatas 
•MB PlatoM eaaoaa^tei at in dooknia dlf fart. ... ^1 astaa 
iMlMiit allaa potantlaa (quod vldantur Platoniel aanaiaaa 
da daeaanlbiia» dleantoa aoa aasa arrlHO paaalToa) evm taann 
paaal* non alt niai In parta ailaaa aanaltl^a, ut probatvr 
in VIT PiQra.), ooortat quod taloa anbatantlaa corporlbua 
OTiaalela Qnlantur, ut aetlones tallua patnntiaruB par da- 
tavalaata orfana azaqoantnr. .•• .^ad la Ik>o cartiaalaa a 
doatrlaa taa naterda qnan ArlataUlls, doctrina fldal dia- 
cordat, quod ttoalaua taoltaa aabatantlaa paoitaM c orp orlbtie 
asn unltas, olurva quaa allqula aoriiB ponaty* Ua Pot« (I9i. 

SacUon 2 

1. ManaaiTis, n© Wat. Hon., Uh LPO Uo, 793 and 796 j, 

2. C^, i28i| S»1», I, 22, 3, c.; 1.3, 6, arg. 1 at ad 1, 

3a "Sed hoc aoa eat ponandua propter hoe quod sacondaa 

naturaa ama angelua aagla aa habaat ad praaaidaadaai aal^ 
qaan plantla...," £.2., ^, HO, i, ad 3. 

li. "Plato enia poovit a^betantiaa ianatarlalaa aaaa ratlaaoa 
at apadea eaaalbilitai corporua, et qiiaadaa tmlTeraalloraa, 
et ideo noault aidbatantlaa laawtarialaa hab«^ praaaidentiaa 
lamadlataa aivaa oaaia sanalbllia oorpora« et diversa circa 

dlTaraa," S.T., T, 110, 1, ad 3. 

5« Da S^, ■■(,■,- , t^j. 

6, "Ab hac autas! provldantlaa rati ana Arlatotells noD dlacor- 
dat.... Saaundua iglttir ha«e tria drca aubatantlaa aepa- 
rataa Invenltur T.atonl8 opinio etai .\rl a totalis opinlona 
eanoordara,* Da Sub. ^ep.* 3 117 J. 

n ivfi s0»itiM 



bm l>^ ,0*1 mJ dd ,.; .1 

.1 te te r .•STfi .^ .fOf £.r .: ^? 


-•J ■ " " .i 

ri Part IT 66? 
ChapUr X 
SMtion It 

»»ction U 

1* tLg. Pj i^alo I8jj Tn T)e Caug la t2lijj In TJe '"• 2i ^'^ U8j; 
Uj| S.V. i3j, 

2. De Vjr. U7j. 

3. In accoi-dance with 5t. Thooaa' praetic* of ueinfr a atanrtard 
axaapla to apltflaiaa a rtoetrlna, the ho«o • haao aaparatoa 
vumplm nunnrlaee and Introducea tha vlaar of aaparatad 
spaeioa vorked out In the cooaentary on ths Metapt^yaJca . 

i^ baainK' the preaant expoaition on thla awdal, tiwrafore, 
i»t» Thonaa Intei^'ataB tha theory of aeDaratad itood Into tha 
baekgrcund of tha co—antary on the Matapharalca and thus 
alao 9ff9ete a synthRSla of that c oM a an ta»y m^ tha ana am 
the Ethlca . The lattor coRmen'ary ■alntalna axaetly tha 
•aM baekgraoai aad ezplolta tha aaw paraUol (In tth. [2 J 

U. Da Sg. Creat . Uj; Da Sj^. Sjp. tl|liijl5j(6jj In na iht. 
Mob. il TUOJi In 22 '-auaia nij. 

5. laith. l7il6jiiijU5i. 

6. In Kth. tl3J. 

7. Tn Eth. 17jL20j; In JTo rausia U3jtlliJ; Da t*ub. Sep. i2iijt 
In De C. at «. Ll5j. — 

8. In Heta . L128j, 

9. In ^feta . tl30j. 
10, 2s -^ub * ^ep . i,6j. 
U. InEth. 19J. 

12. j^ S£. rreat . t7j. 

13. Thia expression, a brtef reference to thn ria Platonica . la 
taken tram Pe Malo L8J. See also Tie ^^A. Sep. Llfl j eWe 
tha aaae eaq^reaaioi) rafera back to tha ela^wate cteaeriptlon 
of the TJa Platonlca ^n He Sub. .^er> . lIj. 

1^- !!• ISr- 117JI ef. In rth. Ifljl9i(l5jj In Ifeta. ll?6jU30j. 

15. Kxpreaaly In i>e «£, rroat . i,7jj 1« Sub. Se£, llj. 

16. In rth. 17 J. 

fid Tl i^ 

fi **^- ™ . 



iSj « rf<^ til) .i-^L^-i ■ »!U^ UiJ t' -^ 




•Idj » 

L .01 


. li Kl .11 

• l 1 


mtw ad^ od* vm 

wi»ln lotnd « aT 

f .CI 

•IIJ . gae . dtfg. •£ Hi «ij* !• 

.iOtijttttXj , »S(a Hi ii5X]i<?Jl8J •dtfi gl .19 :! Til .jji jfl .lU 

•[Ij .qpe . <ftie «£ llV] . l»«r«? .^ £j, ox i^wwrsqpca .^ 

.LTJ .dii nl .41 

lIHMt Pmr% TT 666 
Chapter X 

17. "... tanen hoc absolute rarvm e«t, quod aliqnld ••! prlmia, 
quod per viMUi eeeentlaa e«i ens et boonst quod dleinue 
D«ua, St n ■ttperloribua patet ," S.T. I3j| cf. In De Dlr. 
Nan, iTj. 

16. "A prlao Igltur per auaa esaentian ento et bono, unuaquod. 
q«B potest die! bonun et ene, inquantun participat Ipaua 
per BoduB culuadaui asBlallationls, licet ronote et defici- 
•Bter, ut ax auperioribua patat. ulc ergo unuaquodqua 
dicltur bonuB honitate divina, slcut prloo prlnclplo ex- 
ailOari, effaetlvo et final! totius bonltatia. NlbiloBinus 
taaen unuaquodque dicltur bonun atallitudlne dlTinae bonl- 
tatia sibl Inhaorente, quae eat fonMlitar sua bonltaa de- 
noHlnanB ipaua," ij.T., T, 6, U, c.; ".Spoclalltw taaen 
qn aatw ad prepoeitua pertinetf apparet falaitaa praadletae 
poaltionla ex hoe quod oane agana invenitur albi siaila 
aceraf undo ai priaa bonitaa alt affactlTa oaoiua boooma, 
oportet quod alBilitudinea auaa laprlToat In rabua effaetia; 
et ale unuaquodqua dicetur boTTua alcut foroa inhaerenta per 
aindilitadinaa auami boni aibl indltaa, et ulterioa par bcmi- 
tataa priaaa, aleut par exaaplar et affeetl-vus oanla boni- 
tatls creatae. Quantioi ad hoc opinio Platonla auatlnerl 
potaat," na Ver., 21, ij, c, 

19. Thla is the propoeltlon dlsmaaaad In rje 2Si;»» ^^» ^» l»l-» 
I, 6, U, has "utrua oanla sint bona bonitate dlTlna.' 

20. Pa Ver., n, h, arf. 1j S.T., T, 6, It, m^. 1. 

21. In I ^ent., 18, 1, 5, aol, 

22. As in S.T. 13J. 

23. Aa in Pf Sub. L^ep. 13]. 
2U. As in Tie Vor. 117 J. 

Section I 

1. De Halo [lijj Tn Db 01 t. torn. 11:116^; 'e Sub. Sep. Uj! 
5 S£. Creat.~n*i| S^l- ^J» 2S *>^ »"Tl90j. 

2. ApnroTod In T^e ^. r>ep . I3jt In Tm Mt . Noa. lljf re- 
jected In 7n «Bta. U71 j 1190 j lIPflTj^ ha S^TSep, llJi Da 

3. In Mata. Il26jll71jll89j. 




: n 




-t " .61 


(8 "O 

fien^hiuZ v^u'jJv^-- axax4:iO 

^ mm mm 



- - - 






?(^ •« 


.ICJ . ■ ."- 

-' «f 


•iViJ . 



^ moltmU 

«3 lii 

J .c 

II Part TI 669 
ChapUr X 
SmVIob $1 6 

li. la MaW. il71j. 

5. la Mata . U90jU98i. 

6. In Mala. 1103 J. 

7. Da Sp. (re«i . ilijlTj, 

8. Da oub, :>ap « ilj. 

9. In yeta. U07J. 

10. In Meta. ilTlJ, 

11. In »ata . il2j. 

12. Db Halo iLii l/« ^^. ^e£. Lljl I^ ££• Creat . Uji7j} In Ca 
PIT . Men . iljTl6i. 

Section 6 

!• 52 III- *!2a»» ^» 6 tP U2l4i26j. 

2. "... at bie videtur fulaae error eantlliaa, at dicit oiony- 
sioa ••• quod etiaa patat ex hoc quod ponebant unun daiat 
aapientiae, at allaa dean paeaa, at ale de aliis," In T 
Sent., 2g 1, 1, ary. 1. 

3. In Do DlY, Woa . i20J, 

I, S.T. L26jj In P« DlT. Nov* t3jU6jt20j[??j ; In De Pausia 
r^lflJll3Jll5ji I^ Sub, Sag. ll8jUi»J| In S, PauU 16]. 

5. Tha triad in Froclua la ana - vita - tnt'^llortue ; this be- 
conas staryiardj tha par aa pax of the earljr report (in I 
Sent ., 2, 1, 1, arif . l7 diaappearai tte ^er ae aapientia 
racnra in eaaaeni on Dionysiaa. 

The eoncentary on the He rivinla Moainibua la variously 
dated: 1260 vT/urantol, Tyroff^ naJiTi 12^1 (ManriaBnat, hala) ; 
126^-1266 rpera); before 126fi (^eder)i 125^-1269 (Ba^lc). :^ 
exaninatlon o£ tha arguwata advanead eraatea the iapraaaion 
that no real extrinsic evidanee axista and that no ana has 
aade a thorough conparative stiidy of the coaeantary. Decauae 
of the coapariaone developed in tti^s study, I incline t« the 
1268 dating. Moat of the authorities acree that the aork ia 
too 'aatura for tha period of tha Sentences co-n««sntary; Iryoff 
atatee (p;-. I!>ti-l59} that the work shoaa a aasterful kiuwledre 


..IT' ■ • I a 

.Hi . 

....■UJ , _ .li 

If---'- ■ - -- ----- -.. --..- - ^ 

.kos] «isR ,3^ f£ £L •€ 

. _ _ T 


? (sli ^ 

n/ , i 

00 It. J 

•od maa < t>nm e - 

ex iiow «"ii ^sn4 C 

It F^art n 670 

Clmptttr I 

9Mtl« 6 

of tte Ptufaica . Um )UUphjB±oa and th« IM Anlaa j r«d«r 
(p« 322) baaea hi a datimt en certain ooapariaona with tiM 
Suama Thadlofciaa . 

6. Tho neat strikint; exaaple la S.T. i.26j whare ^lato ia Intro- 
ducad at firat but ia repljMed azpllcitly by "Platonici" 
alMn the ger se vita ia added. 

7. Cf. S.T. I26j. 

8. 3.T. U6j| la L9 PIT . Km. il6i} In ^ Cauaia U3i. 

^* If 22» £i:£*i* l.^JI ^-I* t5j; "^muB ot ena," In Meta . L171i; 
"ena at honun," In ne~DiT, Nan. [3j. 

10. "/Id prlanuB dlcenduR, quod rionyaiua tractat de divlnia 
Moalnibaa aeeandua quod haV-ent rationaa cauaalltatia, prout 
aellleet aaniraatantur in partieipatieea craatnraruat at 
ideo bonua ante axiatena detera^nat," In I Sent ., 6, 1, 3, 
ad 1} "Ad aecunduB dicendua, quod bonus etat eonminiua mn 
saeaadva aabltua praedicationia, quia ale comrertltur cub 
ente, sed aecundun rationed caunalltatls; causalitaa enla 
efficiena exaBplarla eztenriltur tantum ad ea quae partici> 
pant foraaa actu auaa causae exe^ilarie; et ideo cauaalitas 
entls, aecundun quod est divlnuiR nonen, extecxlitur tantun 

ad entia, et vitae ad vlventla; aed cauaalitaa finia extendi- 
tur etian ad ea quae noadui participant fograasy quia atioB 
imperfecta deaiderant et tendunt in flnaa naadoB partici- 
putla rationaa fiaia, quia aunt in via ad ana. Vocat enla 
PlonQTBlus non wm mat«i*lam propter nrlvationem adjunctaa; 
unda etlan dicit quod ipaum non ens deaic!erat bomotf" In I 
Sent., 6, 1, 3, j^ 2j cf. S.7., 1, 5, 2, ad 1 et ad 2}~Yn 
Da DlT. Koo., 3, 1 L226jj ^, 1 t6o6j; 5, 1 l612j. 

11. Proclua, T^ Elanante rf Thaology. Prop . 138 IP 1?2.7-20J. 
That the Hood Is dlatlnct fron mi auperior to Belnp ia ex- 
plicitly atated in ]_e Sub. Sen. t2l4j; Tn De CaMBJa tSjUOji 
In ^ 111' ^» U6jL20Tr2?.l. The firat -rtnciple is said 
to be uaoa at bonua , without Bention of ana in Le Malo lI^JI 
In rt© r, et M. il6j| In La £!▼. Moa. Ll6j| jje 6uS . >>ep . 11 j 
VtiT^n S^ ."165 J J In Da Cauaia T^Cj. The Uxta in which 
the per ae ^bonua la explicitly put prior (oatolo ically and 
net aerely In rauaality) to the per ae ens a.Tffar to be aub- 
aaquant to the tranalation 11268^ of <Yoelua* leaentatio 
Thaologica . 

1?. Jjn T^ liT . Not., 5, 1 L639j, [The question sight here bo 

raiaed why the arguaant ia not puahod all the way, reaulting 
in a seriaratinn of unua and bonun . f>'hMe "t. Thoaaa doea 
not raiae thia qu ation, ha la aware that thla uaifl cation 


S — 

•i(X] ■JMttO ea ffl tidli «Motl .ria •« Ml >^.^ >^ 

llXTU . a»ar nl ",««• , - • • • ,^ 

... ^ 

IK V^ 


nt. •■'! 

."iildil ,? i i ,f ,. 1 


.C *i 



4ROO OlB *i«P « 


- ;. 



o«bl 1* ;8i 

-X9 Kl 





^ lid fc*rf»'q "t 

- r . . - ... \ 

iot««: ^9rt TI 671 
Chftpter X 

[on 6 

was du« to the r«duri1oa of unity and soodnesa to a air(>l#' 

ratio (Jn . Jo. L^il In th. iUjj In ^oet . \nal . lIOJi 

l^^ "... Incirlondaa Tldotur «b Mb qmi« do 4nf;ell8 antlqulttio 
hiuMna conjoetora aKlatlaavlt, ut ol quid imrenorltjus fidei 
comonuai aecipiaawa, cfMM ▼ero doetrlnae ropoftnant rstholl- 
oao rofutoroa," Do Sub. Sep., l (P Ij; "Oula i{?ltur oetoMUm 
oot qnld do Bubotantlla aplrituallbua praodpul rhllosoj*! 
Plato et ^riatotoloo aonaorunt qoantun ad oortai orlginon, 
eondltlonen naturae, diatlnotlooifl ot jnabernaVonls ordineB 
at In quo alll ab ola orrantoa dlB»en«f»nint. ..," Ibid., l6 
iP 92j. 

Hi. ".,, in quo alii ab ola erranteo..., ihid., 16 i» 7?J. 

15. "nindo ''lato aufflclontlorl via oPoc«B8lt... ," Iblri ., 1 L' Uj; 
Tt Idwo Aristotolf'S nanlfoatlorl et eortlorl via proces- 
alt..,," Ibid., 2 tP 8j, 

16. IMd . 11 J. 

17. Ibid . Uj. 

18. Tbld . i6j. 

19. ••... aecurKlum bo unum «t bonuie,* Ibid . 1"^]; 'pur so vmm et 
por ao bonofli," Ibid , lljj "iiMun unun et Ipaim bornm,*' Ibid. 
t5jj "ipsa Idoa nniua ot bonl," Ibid . [6J. 

?0. Ibid . I3j. 

21. Ibid , ll^j. 

22. Tbld., a IP 59 j. 

23. Ibid . il8j. 

2l). "... Platonic! poouorunt quldaa aMdmi ljB?<ateriallTa aitetan- 
tianoi et univeraalltar onnltBa existontiun fotai oeao inwdiate 
cansaa eaaaodi.... Et hoc eat prinun prineipiuB quod eat 
Doua, do guo Jaa dictua eat qnod eat auue eaae," ibid . Ll8j. 

25. "f't anlffl aupra -^-^ - -si, roeuerunt abetracta prircipla ao- 
cuadoB ardlnani i; . »ibiliwi eoncoptlonrm ... prlva ... 
quod eat ipouM one et ipaoi mam," Ibid. [iBj. 

26. Do Sub. Sop., 16 i? 9lij; In b. ^auli I5i. 

27. \riatotle, Mta . . 7TT, 6 UOO"^ ^-11 j| VIT, Ihi 16 11039a 30- 
32; lOLOb 32151 i. 

IV& tl ivfi. sBW^aM 


B9d..- — ._ _ ^ / - - JO 


• 111 .fcitfT M 

± ,U 

':! .01 

i» «MRi OT TMT* tiri ,btdj ■•nmod «• na» m m •••• .91 

^' " ^ 

-. - -.^. . i 

,i;\ . _idl .OS 

1 .xs 
^^ .rs 

>: claJKaJ^aeat kuIicbd « * .US 

■ • • '^ 


•Idlj ,bKt ••«•««• afora ^ts 1 

... — Ml t q ... ".OA nc' nt r»f ) 

4 a .ds 

IX rme% IT 672 

28. In ni lata., lli; cf. S,T., I, 76, ■}, c.; Tn He CauaJg L7J. 

29. P« Sab . Sep.. 9 I? 6l-6?j; cf. In I^ rjmaie ll6j. 

30. "Hlrendua quod, sirut In eodMi e«plt« Iden licnyslus diclt, 
licet ipBUB »88« sit p«rrf«ctina qtun Tlta, 9t Ipsa Tlta quan 
ipsa ssplttntla, si ronald«r«atur secundiai quod dlstlnRiiuntur 
rational taaen TlTons ast parfentlus mum ans tanton, quia 
YlTsns atlaa est ens, at sapiens est ens et rivena. Licet 
igltur ena non Inrludat 5n ae rlvenn at sanlsns, quia nsD 
oportat quod lllud quod partlolnat esse, partlelpet IpauR 
secunduB omen nodua eaacTidi ; taven Insua esse Pel Includlt 
In as Titan et saplentlan, quia nulla de perfactinnlbus os- 
sendl potest deesHe el quod eat ipsun tfsse subsistens," 
3,T., I, U, 2, ad ?j cf. ne J^., 7, 2, ad 9. The confronta- 
tian here involves an oppoaltlnn In the understanding of 
both, both as to Its structure In created things and as to 
Its neanlng as act of existenct?. Evidence of this opposi- 
tion (which is rathsr iq;>llclt in the texts th<<nselTes) has 
been accumulated thioufrhout this atudy. \ valuable deTelor*- 
ment of this Dolnt could probably be carried out bj an anal- 
TSis of all the Thoedstic texts on the Auf^ustinian loTels 

of belnjy, the esse - YJta - intellsctus of Proclua and 
IHonyai jS and the vl jrere eat esse Tiventiua of Aristotle. 

31* "Quia igltor oatensna est quid do substaBtils splritualibus 
praeclpui phlloso-hi TLato et Aristoteles senserunt ... 
ostendere oportot quid de slaj^ulia habeat Christianas re- 
Uglonis assortio. Ad quod atoour praeclpue lionyBll docu- 
mentls," T-e J^ub. ^., l6 i" 92j. 

32. "o.. Id quo ise. DionyslusJ renoret onlnianea Flatonicorum 
qui ponebant quod ipsa essentia bonitatis erat sqbf>us Deus 
s«b QUO erat alios Dana oul est ipoua esse et sic de aliis," 

ibid,, I'C iP Olij. 4n exactly parallel treatsent in a purely 
theolotrical context occurs in buper fp . i», ?auli ad Cojoaa ., 
1, li. 

33. In ^l^» iom. 13J. 
3ii. Ibid . Il6ji20ji22j. 

35. Ibid . il7j. 

36. For exaaple, ibid . L20i Is clearly dictated by the llttera . 

37. For exatiple. Ibid . t20j. 

38. In De Causls l6jl8iLl3jU6jl22ji23J. 

99d u i^m 

.IT' - - ^ - 







£^no?(la«d « 

.4 t*i . 








••X^o.r«hiA to ■ 




ft . % c r ^ 

.1 ■jiSSJiilii. -.J.-* 

. r 









■oiMt Pttrt n 67) 
Chapter Z 
Section 6; 7 

39. Tbld. [llj. 

liO. For axanple, ibid . 18J. 

Section 7 

1* 5S ^- iWJ; rj« Malo I2j| In »eta. (llSjj Jn I>« *lr. t52J; 
In ^£. ft M.'T2?Tr'C.2. t50i7^ 2H^« Seo. t55j. 

2. S,T. [25 J. 

3. In Eth. U9J| S.T. U5j| £• Sub. Sep. I5jl27i. 
i*. D« lialo L6J; In S. P«ill Uj. 

5. In jith. il9Ji S.T. LUii F)e hub. Sep . t5j. 

6. S.T. lliij. 

7. In Sent . tl6jj r-e Ver. iUjj C.O. L20j; Tie Pot. tl9jl20j| 
In I th. Il9j; s77.'Tli^ji?lijL2^iT80ji93, jTn Phy. l27jj In 
Meta. a01Jlll^jTl20jj r* Jalo llit?j["^j[nt^9Ji In l^e ^. 
l52A'3ij; In ii £. «t M. t??jT £• ^. Sep. Uji2jr57(?Sj. 

8. C.n. [20J; S.T. (80J; In Weta. tU5i; De Valo [2j| In rHB An. 
152 J J In De~rT et «. t2?j| J]e Sub . Sep . [2^ 

9. He ?ot. U9JU?J; In ^. ''avll LUj S.T. (liij; De Malo tUj; 
De Sub. Se^. t5j. 

10. See Sources under texts cited In Not«B 1-9. 

11. De Pot. U9J. 

12. De Sub . Sep. Uj. 

13. St. Thoaas thlnJca to find reference* to the doctrine Iji the 
Aristotelian texts. ( f . In £e An. iS2ilSUii In Meta. llOlj 


T .1 

it '5 

i ' -T 

> ,8 

tU] oisit ^ iiiUJ .T.a (Lii ixwq .& 

•t^xj a .II 

•Ui •'!?? '^ 5? «5I 

^^' . ^l ^ .)-••<. ^-. I. .w4« ^« a^,. 

II Part II 67U 
ChapUr I 
Section 8 

ieetloa 8 

1. r« Sub . Sen. Uj. 

2. Ibid . 

3. In Sent . l-^Sj; In ^oet . Anal . L9J; 1>© *n. [?jL19ij In Phy. 
TI9"jTt1J; In Mota.TI^^j; In I)e An."Ili<57t In re rausls ll6j> 
C.O. 16,; De :;ub . S»p . UJ. 

ii. In M«t«. 1195)1 In »• C. •t If. U6jll7Ji In He Cauai« 15 J ; 
VC 119JL22J; re ti£. ^reat . l9j; 1* ^. IlOj; S.T. [jhl 


5. S.T. t35j. 

ilt n t%^ 

8 J£_*#p«8 , T 


I J 

r .il 

..' J 

It Part n 675 
Chapter X7 

1. E.jj. In S. lit. 12 J. 

?. In Vmtear , ilj, 

3. E.£. In M«t> . UlJllJij. 

I, In ^ant . 19J| T^ Var. (HiJi £^ fet. iljl9illOjLl6j; S.T. 

5. S.J5. S.T. t7lj. 

6. £.£. In Iteta . Il2j| S.T., T, 8ii, 1, c. 

7. E.£. Do Ver . ll7J. 

8. E.^, Pe So. Croat ., 3, c. 

9. E.£. S.T. i3j. 

10. E.^. re bub . 'Sep . [18 j, 

11. r.£. £• 3ttb . St . Hi. 

1?. l.£. In T n# An., 1, [P Uljj s«« S.T., I, 35, 2, c. 
13. E.£. la D; Trln. t5j. 

1^- ^•£« 2* *• i!!*Sii- ^10 J. 

15. This 5 8 no doubt tho r—man irhy St. ThoaM so tx^vmntlj 
cites tte t«zt of ThOMistius ("^nto auton ponsnB Intol- 
Iftctua tmoi Boparatun, eoapararlt ipsun soli, ot Tbeaistiua 
dlelt,- Da Un. Tntell . t8J). Cf, n* Sg. (reat . U6iU7jj 
re 'alo LllJi S.7. l^0jt5lj; Po Un. Int«ll. illj. 

16. "Haec auto.1 nraoniaiaus, nan quasi Tolentoa aoc phllosophoruK 
auatorltatllMa rsjyrobare Buorapositum orrorwai sod nt ooten- 
danus, qrttod nan soil Latlnl, quorus ywha qcibosdaa aon 
sap^unt, sod etia* Hraeci et ^xabes hoc ssnserunt, quod In- 
tsllsctus sit pars v«l potent! a sou rlrtus aniaas quae est 
corporis forma," T}e Un. Tntell ., ? [K 59j. 

17. ^iirsr de Brabsnt, QMaestiones in H^itapl^icaa, TT^, 12, Cdp* 
■sntuB (Oralff, p. 113); TTT, 7o, rort^ntuw (Oralff. p. I!?^). 
For tlie use cf ^t. Thonaa' coeawntary in this work, see 

"Introduction" (^raiff, p. xxll). 



< ' ■ ., ! 

.IS] .iM .C nl »a*3 •£ 


•o (I «ii8 «I fl*£ I LSI] -o^ oT •S."^ "^ 

• ITi] .22^ 22 .^.S .T 

•le] •!•£ «#•£ '^ 
.Iti .gjii .Aie 25 .51.3 .££ 

.101] . IlWttI .ifU 1^ .^.s .fU 

-I«^!tl acMaoG ■•;>tfs o^aX*?*} wflsinadT le izai tdi^ ■•tls 

eu^' ■ ■ r 

-•Bol ,SX ,TTT nt er j£ ,>p ^. .TX 

,(X*xx .q ,lllj«0) 'not^oabottar 


Primary ;aourcoa 

^tor \bolard, Opgra. PL (UULVIII. 

, Pater Abaalardn ?hlloaophl»ch» Schriftan, ed* Bamhard 
Cr^ymr, B»itriga, "HafBtHikiir, ttoaater: Asobradorff^ Band 
UI, Haft iJi, 1919-1931. 

St. Albart the Oreat, Opera Ownla, ed, Auguat Bargnat« Pariat 
TlTaa, 1890: 36 YalaTT IataptafBlcorqa Ubrl IIII. vol. 

Alexanriar of ^nhrcx'lsla, Tn ]_e v^aneu et Janeato , ed« Paulua 
laadlanu, ( o— antaria in Arjatatalaa Graaca , Darlini 
19011 Tol. ^IT,part 1. 

Algaaal, ilgaaal'e lietaphylea . ed. J. 7. Uuckle, r.S.3., 
Toronto: St. Ulehaal'a Collage, 1933. 

A*«>onlufl, Tn Categorlaa , ed. Adolfue Buaaa, ConBietitaria in ^rla - 
totalaa Oraeea. aerlim 1895: vol, IV, pirt U. 

, In r>e Interpretatl one , od, .\<1olfuB Baaae, CoMantarla 
in Aritftotelap Oraaca. 3orlic: 1697: Tol. IV, part 5. 

Aristotle, Ariato telle Catcgoriae et Libe r da Tntarpratati one , 

critical ed. L» Uinio Palvello, Oxford: Ci;u-endo« ^esa, 

, Matapfayaica , text altli coseanrtary, V. D« Roaa» Cocfordi 

Claraoden ^raaa, 192Ut 2 Tola. 

, Pbyajfa , tart aita ooMntary, «• D« iiaaa, Qicfordi 
(laraiM^on Praaa, 1936. 

.» ''^^or «mtl Poatarior .Uvilytica , text wiUi rowantnry, 
" . ' , Roaa, Oxford: Clarendon '^as, 19U9. 


.IIITXU3 JO "n^tA 

^ r' 

«.& « »' 


i" I 



Ariatotla, Tba VtMca of Arlstotlv, BlBWitgim. iazt vlth 

If John .^imat, l.ondant MUOMBf 1900. 

St, AugUBtlfW, Opera Ownia, PI, IX^Tl^LVJJ. 

, Vm rivltaU Djl contra P»utMio« Llbrt 3tin, ad. J. 1 . ' 

Moldoin, 1 .!,, London I r.P.C.K., 19?Ii» 2 Tola. 

Avarroas (Tbn-KouacM}, PharalcoruB Qpto Arlatotalta Llbrt ruw 
kmrrola rp— wntarlo , Vanlcei \rud Juntas, 151*2. 

, Arlatotella OiMila O p a r a — ATarroaB — CooMntaril — 

Van^ret « -vid Juntas, 197"?-lTy5'» 11 vols. •'Icroflln. 

, Ma Rpitowa dmr ^taphyalk dea A wfu a a , tr. 8, 

'daiTBBrJrh, Laldan i »\ J. artlI7"lo5irr 


IwlMona (Ibn Slna), Mataptoraiea. traaaerlpt of 1^20 Vanlea 
adltion, Tha Flrane1sc»n Tnstltuta, i^t. Bonaventure, 

K.i., 19140. 

Aylcebirol (Ibn Oabirol), fens Vlta a, ad. Claaam Btwoakar, 

aaitrisa, BaeiMioar, Ufnatort Aschandorff, Band I, Ho ft 
24t, 1895. 

Baeon, Qgoetlona o Mtra ac^ra Libroa Priaa PMloaopfal 
Arlatotalla ( Beta T-IV). ^njeetioaaa Supran ST TESnTi. , 
Matairdwaica Vatue 'rtatoteHg , ad. "Rcbart ijtaele, Oxford: 
«naon ^ 

kcon, ygoa'^Tona o AjLvara ac^ra iiiProa nriaa tTHjoaopm 
Arlatotalla ( Beta T-IV). ^njeetioaaa Supran ST TESnTa , 
Matair^Mfalca Vatue ' rt a " ' 
riarendon ^Yaaa, 1932. 

Boathlua, Opera CMa, PL UTIT-UTV. 

, Boetli — rw Inetltutlope wualca llbrl gulnqua , ad, 
rkxlofredua Frladlein, Lelnal^rt TetAmer, 1067. 

, ]_e rpneolatlone FMloaophlae , crltloal ed. Adrian 
Fopt«»«r««, Londcri Bume Oaiea and HaaMbvm, 19?5« 

, Pa Conaolationa Phlloeophlae, ad. Ouilelnua Weinberger, 
r<TL, Tol. UCV-t, Vlennari^^. 

, In Taapotten Po rrhyrll Co— anta , ii. 

Saaoal ftraadt. 

St. BoMMenture, Opera Qiia, Coaraecldt Rx Typotrraphla Collacil 
S» BoDarenturaef l8fl2.1QO?s 10 Tola. 

Euatratius, 7n \ thlea WMaMahea, ed. OuataTOB Haylbvt, rja. 
aantarl.-i In Arletoftelai Qraa«a . Barllni l892i rolJLl. 


" tU>intrk 

.II\UX-IIXXI jn «AjhEarO OTttqO ,«iMbuj)vA »^ 

•0 ,S .t .te ,^.t Jb 

•ftjGopr S ttk^^i. fJi.J,'.. «.4,;i . 

Mill*? 0' 

«f" ' 

•-' - 



:blo'iX 4lUJ?J^ JKKKi .i-i." 

) — I ;^ , 

cift7 .3 ,ii 


• i^l r 


Mh«bA .tw i 

.icv^ ^a--^' ■> 

«JMMB laow?. 

iiS^IXoO flMtrmv 

•v' ^ 4 I ' V* • IV* 

■u »12 

r CiV" - J. • Jl».-Ti.«» 3 ••/JU • 'a« 1^> 


Fi'iuwiiU Philonophormi O r a g u ur ua ^ aH. <l. A, WtMUf0i^t Plurls: 

U Philoaophormi Or—c 

Liber de ' auala . u. Jarrtor.hewor : ' !• "peudo-Arlatotaliach* 

Schrlfi " ffber daa Hyine Ju^ f^rttaawt twUr d— Haiien 
" Liber dm Cmmla ,' hrmihnrt' i. :(.: Herd«r, 1^. 

Ilacrc*>iu», CeaHriylomM ptIM Hal Matumalieni t Cc— Ptarlue 
In > ownittw ScTplonia, ©d, PraaclBcvia ^lysoanbardt, 
LslpBlKt Teubner, 1868. 

, Cgi— ntai-y on the DraaB o f t'Cipiq , tr. «!. H. Stahl, 

Now York: Cclunbla JrtlTeraity ^Ysss, 1?5^. 

Moses v«aiiNonide8, The Guide for the F^wrplexwl , tr, «. Fried - 
lander, 2nd od., Ix>ndon: Toutledro, 1*736. 

Proclua, The ^Iwenta of TteoloKy. ed. E. R. Dodda, (Aford: 
rUrendoa Preee, 1933. 

, Procli '^^lenontatlo Yheologlca tranelata a Ottilelfgo 

de Meerbcke t ed. r.^VanataenHiite, Ti.idachrift voor 
?5iloeophie , Leuvon, IV»lp;lir9t N. V, Vereni;TlnR Toor 
Vljatartfe 'Jit:.aTeni toI. aITI (1951), 261-302, h9l-531. 

PorphyriuB, Tsa^oge et Tn Categoariaa , ed. A'^olftja RMse, Co«- 
aontarla in ArlaTotelea Qraaca , derlins 1907: yoITTv, 
part 1. 

Robert de Malun, Oeuirrca da Robert de Welun, toae III, Sewtentle , 
▼el, T, «(i', kayaoS M, Martin, 0,P. , Louvaint Solrllepiurc 
SacruB LonranleiiBe, 19li7, 

John of Saliabriry, Metal of Icon , critical ed, deoene CI, v.ebb, 
Qscfordt Clarendon Presa, 1929, 

Slger de iTabant, Texten invitee , ed, ', MaadMBiet in Siger de 
Brabant et IH-wfrroiaae Latin «» XII I« oi^cle . 2na ed,, 
P. II, LouTalni 1931, 

, gjper de BTahant ^iiesttone aiar la ><^taphy«^qua « ed, 

Gornolio Aarirea Qraif f , 0.; .P., Louvaint Editlone de 
L'Inatltnt dur^rieur de PhlloeoTshle, 1*5148, 

^li^ilicias, IB Catancriaa ^ od. rarolua Kalbfleiach, rcnaatrtaria 
in \ri8totelaB r.raeca , Berllni 1907i vol, VTtI, 

, In ^ 'aHlo , ed, I, L, Helborg, f on-ientarla In '.ria - 

"Z" totelwj Oraeea. Barllm iS^Ut toI, VII. 


.''lalriff «vri4'^'' 

■ r .-a^ ft 

— fc.— . — •^ _1_ _ --^ * • 


.Xt^'ixm ,iiJt-i^ ,(i$Vi) iiU .iwr jnvprx^Jkv 

Ma '■^-'•j-- 





:• *..■•-.■ 

"' «— ^ 



Ttenlatlus, In U Anii«a >3aB|Bi|li«f#» 9AmttHmmMB»m £«. 
— otTl> in ArleTqWillB WiBeS, ftertUif Iff^i ^»1« », 

purl 3. 

St. Thooaa Aqulnui, Oy?r» Owda . .1u««b ediU UoaU XTTI P.^^, 
BoBMt Typis '. ' -arronl , i ■ ">?- . 

, Opwm Owl« . Pium, 1852-1873, FboioliUiofpraTih »i»prlnt, 

, OpT« Oiwia , ad. '•. rr«tt^ at r'. Hai^, fmrimt Vlww, 

l87?-lW6i U Tols. 

, CiiMiiiUrlv in ArlatotalU Libroe d« Anl^t, ad. 
"Aiig»lo fllrott«,"c.^., Turlnt Varlottl, 1916. 

, Ci»iiint^l«i in l^ 3«ngu wt a w w i at o. £• M w crla cjt a»- 
"mlnlae^nUa \rlftloTell3 . ed, Aagelo Pirotta, O.P., iurln: 
Iterl«tt1, 1920. 

.* t 


' hjuado ArlstoUlis, ed. A. HU 

... - 1.^ * ^. ' 

* 1— lAtlo in f)e Caelo ©t hjuado Ariel 
SliUMl, or?., f\lrint UariatU, 19^ 

, i-jcpoeitlo i£ Libros LthicoruB Aristotclis , ed. Air«lo 
"Pirotta, O.P., lurtn* UariatU, 193i*. 

, Fioogltlo in Libroe PolltlRorua Artatotalja . ed, R, «, 
'Spiusl, iZ?., TurTm >lariatti, 19*511 

, Cggaentarla In OnBes ?.pi«tola« S , ?auli Apoatoli . 
"Turint Varietti, 1929i 2 vols. ** 

CoMBMitjuria in Lvaprelia S. Jiatthaei et o. Joannle , 
"fjth e<l., ^irint ^arlett5, 1925: 2 ▼ols.. Vol. n. 

_* Lec^^ro «uper KvanpeliuH S, rattbaal . ed. PaplMwlla 
Cai, C.?., bth ed. rwr., "Turlni -larletti, 1951. 

, Tn Libnni Baatl noqyli j» riTlnls HCTrinibue Expoaitio . 
"•d7"C. %n, 0."., Turin: "ariettl, 1950. 

, In Librtm BoatWl de Trinitate ;ijaa8tioop8 :>:ipta et 
"Sexta , ed. Paul ^jbw, 0,?., Fribourgi .'txiiti Philo- 
iophlqoa, 19li3> 

« '^'^'O PlYlaioo aat- ;>tetbod» of t£_c cleneoii ('"- . V and VI 
~of'ida"^lSSlary on the Te frinitate of Boetliiua), tr. 
Araand Maiarvr, C.S.B,, Torontot Vhe Pontifical Inetitute 
of MKtiaafal otadlea, 19^3. 

^* . » * ^A ?vn : »?_ 

r,-.-f. >>' 

•< i-i^ 


.b. , 




n* bos 

, iL •.--■•» 

t ._ ill .^T 


.t5w « 


St« TlHMS '^mil TWic, ' rriptwi Super Librae viiiil»pilgiiw» ad. 
Fl«rr» Umdcame" V^., and V. F. Mooa , oTp.T""^*^* ' 
Llethlelleux, : lit I: toIb. 

^ Sotp^i Contra Cwitlles , Fdltlo Lnonlna Uaaualla, 

, Chiaeati onen laputatae , 90. -•-. rcrx, O.P,, 
"Turlni Morlettl, 191i9i 2 toIb. 

-» Q^M>— tlonr - •- etalea . ett, najnmind Spla»«l, O,"., 

'L»ihl«llBux, 1927 » ? ▼Ola. 

ItamXcantttf O.P., Paris } 

.» ^^P^srula ftmJa necnon Opera rinorn, ed. J. Perrier, 
'o.P., toae T, Opimeqla phUoaophia , Parlas UtMcIlstuc, 

.> "^ *!-! ^'"^ "^ laatitla ' 6e S. TImimb d'Aguln . ad. 
"l**^. FaiUiirt.iOosa«lln, Kalns lie baulcholr, 1926. 

, Ob Fielnp mnd Eaaence . tr, Anaand A, Kaurar, C.S.P., 
"TonMjtor The Pontifical InaUtuta of ^Jadlaaval Stodlaa, 

_, He Unltato Intellceto rontra \verroiataa , ed. Leo «, 
"Kealer, 3,J., Rcnai Oregor^aa OnlTeralty IVa«a» 1936. 

.» i£ 'rlrltualibua Croat urla , critical ed. Leo ?. 
"Xeeler, ..J,, »owe: IreRCBrfan Un5veralty Preas, 1937. 

_, 53 Mngahlp to tha Mng rf Cyproa , tr. a. B. Pbalan, 
"reT. T. 7b. SseisMna, O.F., Toroniot The Pontifical 

Tnrtitute of MedlMTal ' tudles, I9I1O. 

_» ^^^ wntlnw of Paint p>ortaa ^qul^ma « ed. with In- 
"trod, Anton C, Paile, Rew York: wdcai Boose, 1915: 
? Tola. 

■19 vid 

• •JDov d 

^ .»r ,fcrt 


' v,^n 'i-Jii.- '>ii ;rixi<i ^ r ■. ,4t> ^ <?-■» ^i*' 'i- 


-«! A^tm ,bm , .5 ^ 



&<K>onri«ry 8o^re— 

ion, F. ri., Tha Argu— nt of Pl»to , Londoot J. M. Dsai^ 1935. 

Anwtrongy A. H., An Intrnini'tifr to Ayi— t r'Mla»oT>tqr « '«^st- 
■Imter, Uarylandi ThalMiMn Prtsa, 19U9. 

^mou, H,, b.J,, "PlAtmiiaac das P»r«B," Dictionnalra de Ttrfologle 
Cathollqua. ed. (*., Vacant and K. }«ane«noi,1Tlf col. ?^58- 


r, CI— na , Mi tWlalterli chor und H—lBaanca -PlatoBJaaua , 
Baitrtua, Baaiarirar, '' ^ '-schonrtorff , Band IXV, 

!teft 1-2, 19?7. 

• IST Pl>'^oniP«u» in UttalaXtar, Baitrtsa, 
'ittnitari Aachandorf?, Band ^IV, Haft 1-2, 1927* 

, G., "Notoa sur lea Sources ^atrlstlouas rraoquaa da S, 
Thcana dans la Pranl^ra Partia da U ^owaa Thaolofrlque," 

Braaood, A., o.J., "U ;>^BitJb«a Thoid.aia da I'Acte at oa I'ldaa," 
OragorlanuB XII (1931)« 267-203. 

Bamat, John, Platonlais , Berkeley: Unlvorsity of <'allfomi« PrmBs, 

Carmodj, !{Iehael F.^ 1b>ferancea to Plato and tha Platoolcl in the 
Stana Thaoloffiaa of nt. Tbonas Aquinas," Unpublished 
doeioral dltiaertatlor., Univacslty of '^ttaburg* Pittsbiirg, 

Chami, «•-'••# O.P., "Aurtor, actor, autor," ( Bulletin du Canga ) 
ArahlTiaa latlnitatia Madil jvri, ''ruxellaai'Tac. Ad. da 
Oaian Acad4alqua Intaroationala, 1927, p<^. 81-86. 

, TntroHijriion a I'-'^tude rtc i'alrt Ihoaas d*rqu5n , ^='arl» f 

J. Vrln, 1950. "* 

, "Ixjs "^ronses de S, Thonaa at da Kllwardbj k la Con- 
sultation '!e Jean de ^^rcell," ^af^ee gandonnet , "^arisi 
••„- Vr^n, 10301 2 ▼ols., ▼«!• I, pr . 191-2??. 

Chamisu, Harold, Arlatotla'a rrltlcler^ of Plato and t^ Arariaay , 
Baltioore: Tha Johns Hopkins ^ress, 19Ui, vol. T, 


•e •« 

! (UOfTXA 


y wi — 1. » .-. t ' - I ■ AJW- 'v-* ■' *-< -'•»■*.•' 


2 64^^ 

• «^' at» .•»»* 


*nq ,T .Xov ,,tJ[o«r S »0f9X ,iJMfV 


ammmm, llarold, Th« Hld(11» of tho EatIy H<>il«m , nmrkslsyi 
0«lv«rBlty"o7 rallf ornlaP'reis n , loU^I 

CUrtor n "^.y S.J., "Tha ?niMif4» ttf Bw^ptlon la tht 

-ted Oueatlons of M, Thorns," nnpubllahed Was- 
tar'a thesla, Lalnt LouIb tMwrsltj, 1951. 

Cooner, Lane, A foneordanoa of B oathl uw, ^anbrldgei Tha 
MediaeTal Acadaagr of AMrica, 1028. 

Comfwtl, Ppancis a.. Before and \ffr Joerat9t> , Cadbridcat 
QniTraraity Praaa, 19357" 

.» '^*^o*» Theory of Knowledge, London: !U3utledge and 
~ il, 1935. 

Karon ^au] 

^ Carte, ¥,. "Thamjstiua at a, TrioaaD d' quin, (ontrlbutlon 
« l*!studa des Sotiroaa at de la rhrosoiloglo du Coa« 
■antalre He S.Thoaaa sur le T^e Airiim .* Archivea , 

Ollaon .ind Thery, 7tt ''l"32)7~l47-%. 

Dagnoau, H., ^'iatoire rte la "hlloaophla , ^arla: Retaux, loc-". 

Daaan, Th., O.o., ■Raaarq«aa Critiques de s. Tboaas sur Arla- 

totle lnterpii*^ta do "ia'won, Lo;; -: r^ encea "!tlloaophlQtte» 
— at Di^olorlqueg. Pai-iat Vrln, THil-lVi^: vol. I, pp. 


'^«8tres, J., "La Lettre da S, Theitaa d'Aquin Dita Lattra au 
Leetevr da Yenlaa, d*3pr^ la Tra^Mtion 'fanuscrlte," 
a^lanpaa Mandanpat , Farias Vrln, l«?3ri: 2 vols., vol. 

T, n-. ioi-i?i9. 

t ^'t ''^ai nt Thooac at lo Paaodo- aula , Parlat Alcan, 

BdSaan, "^'nirln, and fchnaidar, ll ar b ^frt ,, tandy^nrka for BbitIp - 

nera in TMIobojAx^, !!e» York: Haynal and Hitchcock, lolil. 

Fabro, Comallo, r,?. ., La MoKiono 'etaf-* 
eacando S, Tooaac riVVquino , 'iri^m: 

Feder, A., "Haa Aqjoliiatfln fi«— iitii su P8audo«nioa9raiua* *r« 
Dlvlnlr. WoKlnlbuB'/ ^holiiBtik T (19?^), 321-1?1. 


Ic r^'^.T -»r»^?».(^ 


,f".l<rv iV ishxiR ,•; 


• A,:- ,'. . Ji' .,.■■-•■ ■ V 


^ .._^_-7 

•C' « «» t !«.♦«»■■»"«>* m»*«fft ^T 


Th<n<aair'"vi^i^n . Parla; Vrln, I'^lTT 

FottlU<i«, Alfr«l, niatoiro de la TTrflfaophla. 10th ad., fariai 
Palagrave, n,<^. 

Von Frits, lurt, Phlloao: hie unri .Sprachlieher '^tiodrttck bal 

T^molcrit . Plito unri'ArlBtotalea. Bcw York; Stachert, n.d, 

Fullar, A. a., A Hiatory c£ Phlloeonhy . Raw Torki Hanry Holt, 

OardaU, A., O.P., "La Hdforw da la Tli^ologla Catholique: Los 
PtoMd^a Ex*gtiti<jae8 da S^dnt Thoraw,' Rarua Thowrleta 
XI (1903), li?8Ji57. 

, "La Utorm da la Tb^ologla CathoUquat La rocu?«anta- 

tlon da Saint Thonaa,* Hrwia Tlwlata Xl (19C3), 197-215. 

, "La Locuaentation de ^aint Th«saa: i^rfpcwa a M« Tnr"*!," 

»Bwa Thawlata IIT (190li), 207-211. 

, ♦•La TiocviBentatlon da i^alnt Thcfas: hapliquo a M. 

^Turnal,- Ra^ua Tbgalata XII (190L), U86-1493, 587-59?. 

•La ^ocuawitatlon da : alnt IlioTas: Un Dendor Mot a 
5. Ttirnel/ ^Hmm Tho«laU XI7I (1905), 19ii-197. 

na\a, JjBopold, Albarta dea ('roeaan Varfaaeltnla au Plato, 3al trice, 
" *, ^fttDBtari Aschondorf?, Band XlTJ Haft 1, 1913. 

Talger, L.-3., n.p.. La Farileipatton c'ana la T^loeophie da 3. 
Thonaa d'Aquln . ^'arlsi Vrln, I'ili?. 

OMify nnilo, BfcHTfla fonapectuB Kletorlae Phlloeonhlae , "one: 
Qragarlan ftnlTara^ty, 1^3? . 

da Ghelllnck, J., :'.J., La Mourewaat TWologlque du IIT^ 3lWrle , 
''arlfl! Lfjroffre,"T911i, 

OIlagB, H,, "Pourquoi ii. Thoaaa n '"rltlcii^ h. Augaetia," ArchJTeg . 
OllMn and Thary, T (lo?6-1927), 5-127. 

, "Lrs iourcaa Qr^co-'j-abea de 1' \ugU!«tlnl8Joe ATicanDlaant," 
ilrchlvea, (^dlao» and Thary, IV (1929), '-1L9. 

, "fi^ifXexioai aur la Controrerae '. '^h~raa - S. iugustin," 
!l^laaga« 'ta«5opnetf Paria: ^tln, 1 toIs., vol. I, 

pp. T71-383. 


•b.n , 

,*Ie!r wt^] t*vst ^ .-mCXtf^ 


, -▼ ^. > H 

«>*- .M. :. ft .-. ^ . 


« _ _ _ 

-^^.1. •^- • 1. ,.^11 « r 7 J^r,»rr^r-i ^ 

:) 71 , 


OilBon, B., "8ur Oii»l«Tti«i mff ievlUe fto I'TUwdmtloo 

AwfwtlalMM*" Bct— JI^o— Iwl—tlqu* d£ Phlloeophie. 
Lcwvttlns Editions d« I'lwiUtut :.utWlri»ur d« Phllo- 
•ophle, 19% I yd, XXXVI, pp. 321-331. 

, U Phllo— phi« « Mflnrw Ajrj, ?nd •rt,, FarlBt Pujot, 

19]3r and 19U7. 

, l£ ThojdwjB, ?ih «!•» P«rl«: Vrln, 1917. 

, Relnfr and Sonw Philogophwa . Toronto: "ortlflcal 

Institute of"5edittoval Studiss, 19i»9. 

, and Boshoer, P., Pis Qgachiehte d«r rbrletllchsn 

^lloaorhle , Zurich* ''oetchnann, 1917. 

Oorcfl, 'i.-v,, o.P., "La Lutt« •Contra Oentllss* ^ Paris au 

XIII* siselo," ?idUng»a Jiydonast . Parlsx Vrln, 1930s 
2 vols., vol, I, pp. 22 3-2Ii 3. 

Orain<ann, '.Martin, He »«>rka d«8 :.eilii,^en ThoBMs ▼on Aoudn, 
Bslti«ce, "SmSS^l Wwtw: AMtendvrfTlbnrmi, 
Baft 1-2, 1926 J 3rd ad., 19li9. 

a n, u. «., Plato* s Thought . Londoni H0tlroen« 1935. 

J , 

Tm (hdbert, J., I.J., Ls» ^ oublets ds b. ThoMS . Leur ^ tade 
a^thodlquc . vuSTquos r-i^fleKJons , QiialquBs ExsapIssT 
"wist %aueheane, 19?<'^« 

aupdifl, »• F. R., * study in Plato , Oxford i rXarendon Pr»s», 

liaia^u, R., lastolre de la Phlloaop h l e :^cholagtlquo, part IT, 
tome 1, Paris :"^doBe-Uurl el, 1880. 

Henle, H. J,, S.J., Method In alstaphyBlea , tfUiisukMt UarqiMtte 
.nlT«r«5ty V'rssa, 1951. 

, •Rxlstontloliaa and the .huiipsent,' Proceedlnpa of the 

\»erlcan r athol5.c rhiloeui^ilcal Association a XT (19iF57 

Hirscbbergwr, J., 0«schlchte dar Phlloeophie . Prelburgx Florder, 

Huit, C., "Ls PlatonisiM m Mojrwn A(?ei Le Platoateas an XTTI* 

Sleele," Aanales de Phllceophle Chretlenne , rarls, l890t 
▼ol. XaJ3 , pp. 26^7. 



»jii,i,»i.'.i, ii^s^ ^itj-'' — «.- 



«». _ 

ms ■•!rtK<=^ .< ♦f?I».t-rV^ — ♦???►'• 9^*tri af* j.'i.'^ «•!•-.* (MnoO 



s ,1*^ 




• ^' 






t»»vtid3 , 






. ( 



■ UtKVA. 


►^ t 

?^ <". '*•' 


,i«li'X3ii r 

t— -"•:-. 

D ,odtflO 


• .' *«XtR1 


■Kit, (;., "^Ua ilkmuU Plat«nlol»w d« la Doctrine d« St. 

Tha^ita HX (1911), 7?ti-766. 

Isaac, Toannaaj O.P., "Saint Thonaa Tntarpr^ta daa Oravraa 
d'Arlstotle," Scivolaatlca , Roooi Pwitlfldua Atliai 
Aatoniaaum, 1951, BSVyJ*. 

laaja, <"<«8toB« S.J., La Yhaorle de la Maaure et I'Sixlatanee d'un 
t a(il0n"?aiaft ^^ha—a. "^ariB> BaaucSena, 19U6, 

Jaekaon, baary, "?lato - . ~ -dipton 

Eth-ca , tfo. ^ ^ k, IriH: 

vol. , 5h 

Klibanakar, Rajwwid, ""lie rontinulty of the Platonic Tradition 

darlag tbe lO^a Agaa. OutlTnag of a Ccrpqe Platonlcu"- 
Madll A^yy . Tx>n !onTT!» nrhurg Trwtltule, l"j"9. 

Kllaka, P., Instltutl onaa illatoriac PhiXoaoptoiaa , Fralburgt 
Harder, 1923. 

KuciMrskl, Pa- , s Chaalna du " " nlera ria - 

logttc Taton , Par^r . c«, 19li9, 

, r?ec«r«?lu8, Arlatotalla Latlnua, Coriieea Daacrlpalt , 
Corpua PMloeorhorua Medii .^eTl, Union Acad^nique Inter> 
natlanale, . onat ia Litorarla dallo :stato, 1939* 

LlDPorhelde, Vlrtor, Thoraaa ▼on Aquino vend die ^latonlacha 
Id— nlehre . Ubnchenslir Rlagw,1595: 

Little, Arthur, v. J., Tbe Platonic Heritage ^ Thoaiaa , Dublin: 
Ooldaa Mgla BSSSa, 1950. 

Lovejoy, Artlnir 0,, The 'rent Chain of 3eing , A^ Study of the 

metory of an Ydea , CwrbrldKet HarTard"~UBiverelt^ Praae, 

Lutoalawaki , Wlncanty, The urigln and Orowth of PLeito's Logic , 
Land on t Oreen and Conpany, 1905. 

, Pierre, 0,^,, Dee ^crlta Authentlqoae de S . 
dMquln , 2nd ed., frlbourff (Jlulaae}! Ti^*^'^*^'* ^« 
. *:9\mrc de .^a nt-'^aul, 1910. 


,»A -- fc— ^_..<Tf _r -1. .- %^v.-^A^ 

,. ..^, — A.f^ ^. .TW 

.*i ^sttin 



•v^«,A ^m•■■">i>- 

•. . i. r _ 




,» > ' A -. ^ ?-«» ■f.'v.-'' (. . ■. r w f* ■- ^ ■"• I-k-\<r'« ■ #*. 


-TdJnl c 


• f,r> 




an ..<l,0 


^%w ThoMlaie 1 (1927), ia-l57. 

. ot eatres, J., O.P,, aibllographle Tbomlate. Kaini 
La Saulcholr, 1921. 

Xanalcn, A«, "Le c niwantialra de : . Tboaas but le Pe Saiisu et 
8wi>to d'ArlstoU. UUIImVob d'Alaxandra 
mPSwHae," llalangw Handonnet. ^urltt Vrln, 1930t 
2 Tola,, vol, I, pp. 83-loi?, 

, "^our l*Mstolra du CaoMntalra do £, Thoaaa mxr 1a 

MataphjwiqiMi d'Arlatote," Bt»a l^eholaatl qtw dg 
Phlloeophla - v^'^ ^9?$), 271139^^ 

r>al, J., i ,J,, l£ Po'nt a Pdpart rie la *i!^t«i^g8lqoe , 2nd 
ed., Psr^ St Mean, 19"??. 

Wor«, ^aul rl-»r, Platordaa , Prtnt?«torj: Princeton TJnflTeralty, 

iferklA, J, ?,, r, .ii.y "Oreok Aorka iranalat«ci diractl/ Into 
Latin before 1150," 2 parts, Jfertj.agval ^tocles, 
"Pontifical Institute of '*©dla«?T;il 'tncien, Toronto: 
191*2: vol, IV J 19U3: vol. V. 

5luirhe«d, Jolin U., Tito I-latonlc TratJltlon In \nglo~:^-axon 
Phllocop)y « London: Allan and Unwin^ 19^. 

Pegis, tXnton ^ . , 1, '"■Ixyvae and _ 'lt«i of t in the 

ThlrteentTn : entury , Torar: . >ftchav]T .__age, lOJIi, 

, ■^Bluiililei— ane! hiatory," Thoaght XITT (1936), 206- 


, "Heeeeelty and Liberty: 'in ElBtorlcol Note am t. 
'ThoB«8,» The »wr 9el>olaet1cla« X a^Ul), l'-ii<. 

, "The rileana of Being and Unity," Vgaa. 'lOwlB^a , 

'9mm Yerki BfeMd Mii fc«rd, l<>li2: or. 151 -? . '-IP?. 

, i oeKOflroflor anA Knon^ledge. . t. Thoaas and Plato," 
"ThoDght irrn (19ii1), 6li3-66/-: •^. The T^itma of 
Coapoelte ■ ssonce*,' Iblr . U), 2 

"TTT. Hataeen T]i«(apht''fln3f Baing," ibl<< . jjt uv;*5), 

, rfo)cs t -^llnikeei liarquetto 

''in" . ' . . <. 

■^liipA'6 t.' 

is. K. 

-^os t^ut^x; ill. 


< •-.— .—V 1. — . 

ii? : 9f>7\yMWJ^^- a,r.^VgT 


Rlquat, 'I., ThoBM at lea i toqtoriUUia ©t " «ophla/' 

/'vTchiyaa d« Flillo«ODlii« IT^, ?, - oaucheons, l')?5t 

pp. U7-i^. 

Rit»««d, Albert, Hiatolre da la Phllcypr-hle , 'ar'f •. rpB«os 
Un?v. da France, 1^-!^ 

Hogars, ,\. K., A Sturient^a Hliitory of Ph'losonhy, Wmr York: 

S«iitel8r, Joee-ih, S.J,, V«r Platonlaia In Jar F>»anwftnl«lehra 
<^«o He 111 -on Thonaa von /.Qutn, Innsbruck: :', Aauch, 

SehKllor, M., nia t^: iloao, hio des ;^— ' -^ geitrtkga, aamiaicor, 
lAlnstor: \schondorff, and aft 1, 1916, 

SchuaU, Ludwlg, Thonaa 1>~^^ - , ^ - rl*ninrb, 1895. 

"hotollthorrar^h r; \surpria. 

Sohxilafflan, Ouoothar, Du K«u« ''"-'"zt p jj dar Philoaonhle doa 
i!l. Thoaae von Equine 'Ve, Baeunlcer, tfunotar: 

Isch9ndorff715and ittl, -.wft 5, 191?. 

Sfiltfc, 'Gerard, t.J., natural Theolofny. Haw torkt 

Stawurt, J, \,, ?lttto*e -^oc trine of Ida— . Odcford: C 
=>re8s, 1909, 

Svamondt, Cloaans, O.P,, "II fontributo dell* vdlsiona Uonliw 
par la ^'onoaoansa dl S. Tonpiaao," :>rholaatica , Ronat 
Pontirieiva Athenaaun *«♦""< -~i«, 19'^;i, ?3l-?82. 

> "., O.f^., "U Rawr' 'nt4»s nivlnaa Baturellee 

d'apr^ S, TbotBaa t. .,.v.., .;'lann«>8 Vandonnat , ^ariai 
Vr^n, 1930: 2 vols., vol. I, -r . 327-"»70. 

Taylor, A. E., nflMMM and Ite Influancca Hnr Xorki 

Taylor, H. 0., ^ Madiaeval yind. London: Ifacaillan, 193C. 

Tlwry, 0,, 0. .., .-.--r Ab P^rrat da 1210 « - TT. Alexandra 

■ * '.pbrodiBe . \pergu aur i'lnfluonce de sa ?'o6tlque 
C Hlbllothejua TJioqlata VTI), Kalnt Le .; aulc hoi r, 1926. 

ts.: . . .-. 

•^f: yrTi 

■•3j*rr>T WTil >ylqye»X 

'l^ ^fma»m 



.^>.'l (fllMT? 


aa6 ft 

C7i -.,■ J.-^i- 


.1* ^o^ 


'v? iK ■*,< -..X.~ 

.dS^i. f-ttoii^Xjii^t ea tOXsui tVi*-* 


V««tliiBr« U0, O.F.!i.ronY., «u, ri^w. Coosvato 4« la Phllo- 

Mphl* Attguotlno-hranclacaina au Jiqjrw) -Ap»,*' SchoO — ilea. 
9cm»t Pbntlflcla. AthMiMia Anioal«Mi, 1951, &??J^5^. 

, Aagelua, O.P., Saint Th> 

pud^, tr. bobaotlan Bulled ... lary 

lM*»i Tha Nmmb Prwa, 195i. ' 

. "TheMB d'Aquln. I. Via. m. Scrlte do Saint 
ThoMS," rirtlonnalre do Theolotclo Cathollque XVl (191*6), 

» J., 0.'., "Rofloxlo. rtude our laa Oparat^ona Roaaxlvee 
dana la PsTchologla do t^, Tbooaa d'Aquln," 'Aelangea 
"^o""*^' '^•rtat Vrln, 1930* 2 vola., vol. i7p^."?85- 

FUd, John, ^lato'a Theory of Hm, Cambrtdw, Harrard UnlToralty 
Preea, 10ij6, ' 

dm W«If, Maurice, rriatory of '«^^n„^ni ^^UosopJff, »ar York: 
'^~*— ~», !>raon and ^j 

Zallcr, Eduard, Outllrxia oi' tm 

uiuaro, mtdinea o^ tm _^ cf nroak Phlloeophy , 

roT. rilbalH Naatle, tr. L. ». ^olnOTTTuh ©d., 
londoni Boutladsa and lagan Paul, 1931. 



«e-.. ^ 

> . . -I t» • 


t' . 1 





I', CO 

o ^•' 

Z 1 


Pi [c 

DO NOT //^ 

H 5 


i^ tS^. g 


^ .£ 2 


g ^ c 


THE // 

^ °-J ^ 


-P G C '' 


H -H • O 





CD > W 0^ 




^ 9 

o xi 


H £-' 





CLh CO ^